TGJB Prepares for The Dirty Deed

[Easy Goer]

TGJB: \"Did the Foster before I left, Mineshaft is aptly named, as he ran the lowest number we have ever given out. It was ridiculously fast, and probably the straw that broke this camel\'s back, and I plan to add several points (probably 5) to the database sometime soon.\"

Easy Goer:
I was hoping for more discussion about this. Why not just let the scale continue to slide downwards without the torniquet intervention to stop the bleeding? Maybe the figs get low enough, and some hot shot rocket scientist lends a hand to shore the system up? Sure you have looked into it, but sometimes a fresh look at things is all it takes to find a hint of the missing link. Weight correction, pace correction, turf-to-dirt switches...? Even if you\'re 40% confident the drift is due to track maintenance and medicine, why shift your arbitrary reference point, and lose contact with your past? Let\'s face it, the negative sign now used to denote turf could just as easily be switched to a T inside a circle or square, and the negative sign could then be used for the truly negative numbers.
All in all, I\'m having a hard time swallowing this database shift when you and your disciples have been touting the beauty of how \'tight the numbers fit\'. It\'s troubling that the Beyers don\'t seem to be drifting - I do not know how the Rags are drifting, but I would like to hear some neutral observations, if there really are some non-partisans out there.
I hope you still have an open mind, just as you did when you left the sheets to form TG because you felt you had to mix art and science to find the truth; you didn\'t want to be a slave to algorithms when a meaningful statistical sample was not available. (Please correct where I may have mispoke through sheer ignorance.)
I\'m sure you have already struggled with these issues, and I would like to hear some of answers and rationale you came up with to deal with it.

[TGJB]

I\'ll be discussing all of this in more detail when we make the move, which will happen when I get a little time, but a couple of points:

1--We will add 5 points to the WHOLE electronic database, which means all figures from 92 on. It will be easy enough to know that the figures stored on paper before that need a 5 point add for comparison purposes.

2-- The fast numbers being run have nothing to do with track maintenance. More on this to follow, but it\'s about the horses themselves performing better (I hesitate to say getting faster, since some of us think there are additional factors). As I have said before, it is tricky to measure this objectively, since track surfaces have changed a lot over the years, but I racked my brain and came up with a couple of interesting things to research, both direct and indirect. Anybody want to take a guess?

3-- It is BECAUSE the figures are accurate that we know horses are getting faster. Beyer and Ragozin figures are to some degree based on claiming pars, and assume that claiming horses don\'t improve over time, an assumption which is ridiculous on the face of it. Making that assumption anchors all your figures-- a grade one horse may be running a number 5 points faster than a 50 claimer, but if you anchor the 50 claimer you then anchor the other figure as well. This is a point I made in a discussion with Friedman on the Ragozin site a couple of years ago.

4-- The reason for the add is that the position of the zero point, which for many years was so convenient, has become inconvenient. It\'s a pain in the butt to deal with all these negative numbers, and psychologically off-putting, since the zero suggests some sort of threshold. It is not-- it is arbitrary, and can be moved.

[JR]

You realize this is going to be disorienting for those of us who have conditioned responses to negative numbers. A negative 2, which automatically sets off alarms is now going to appear as a benign plus 3.

[bj]

*** This is a good point.Even though you are adding say 5 points to all the numbers in your database which will keep the relationship of the figures the same . The actual performance level of the horses will be unfamiliar and awkward to long-time users .If horses are getting faster - so what ? Give them what they ran . bj

[TGJB]

I will think about this, but I AM planning on giving them what they ran, just on a different scale. Every new thing we have ever done has encountered some resistance for about a week, then everyone got used to it. As someone who both works with and bets with these figures, the large number of negatives is becoming a real pain in the butt.

[SoCalMan2]

Just curious, but is the relationship between a \"2\" and a \"7\" the same relationship that exists between a \"22\" and \"27\"?

I suppose since the change is affecting everyhorse, it is immaterial, but it does seem to me that I look at races differently depending on what kind of a number is necessary to win it.  

For example, if a higher number will win a race, I am more forgiving of small differences, than I am when a very low number is necessary to win a race.  Another way to look at it is this, when I see a \"2\" is needed to win, I may say anybody who is going to run a 5 or worse is a throwout.  However, if a 22 is needed to win a race, I will think that a horse that can run a \"25\" is worth including if the odds are good.

Who knows, this all could be figments but just thought I would raise it.

[Dudley]

We WILL get accustomed to any changes made in short order. However, numbers, negative and positive are infinite and relative. And relativity is all that really matters when assessing a race; A 2-point difference between the favorite and 3rd choice will remain the same. A point will still equal a length at 5f, five pounds, a path wide, etc etc. For those that use comparative figures in addition to T-graph when handicapping, i.e bsf, equibase, Roman PFs, the relative differences can still be noted. By the way JB, you may want to add 10-points while you\'re at it, to save you the trouble in 3-5 yrs (or sooner-Mineshaft?) when these improving beasts are running negs again. LOL

[TGJB]

5 points is 5 points, but I handicap the same way you do in this regard-- there are a lot more horses with a 25 top capable of improving 3 points than there are with a 5 top that can.

[Easy Goer]

A reference point is only arbitrary until it becomes commonly used. Then it becomes a standard, and changing it does nothing but confuse. What would you think if the weatherman all of a sudden starting adding 5 degrees to the temperature he quoted? The only way to get used to it, would be to mentally subtract the 5 degrees off the quote to get a \'feel\' for what it really means.

If the figs are legitimately falling, it would be nice to keep the historical perspective. If there is another reason for the slide, it would also be nice to keep track of it as a reminder of the need for further enhancements to your process.

That\'s about all I have to say on the subject, as I am only a piddling customer at this point. I was just trying to get a feel for what the rest of your users thought about the change. (Maybe you already covered this in the survey you took a while back, and feel that it will not have a negative impact on your business.) In any case, it is your business - and I appreciate your timely response (instead of a delete) to a somewhat sticky post.

Signed, Fbtz Hpfs
(that\'s Easy Goer with each letter arbitrarily incremented up one spot!).

[TGJB]

If you think that was a sticky post, you really are new here.

Yeah, the thing with changing the letters is exactly the same-- don\'t worry about vowels becoming consonants, grammar questions etc. The temperature thing is the same too-- even though the horses in a race are being compared to each other (and to their past histories), not to an arbitrary scale.

Some of us have somehow adjusted from the days when we were looking for a horse who could run a 5 to win the Derby, and now look for horses who might run a zero. And done pretty well, I would add. I\'m guessing we can adjust to looking for 5\'s again.

Here\'s a thought-- maybe I\'ll SUBTRACT 5-- that way a LOT of the numbers will be negative. Doesn\'t make a difference, right?

[Dudley]

Just add 100 then anything in the 90\'s will stand out! We\'ll all know then that a 99 used to be a neg 1. Your very own version of the Y2K debacle; not enough digits to accomodate. lol

[bdhsheets]

The question is: What percentage of horses are running negative numbers? Zero has been a solid reference point and measuring stick. I suppose one can adjust to any, buuuuut is it truly necessary? Perhaps a case can be made to wait until they start the heavy testing in Graded Stakes come 2004. We might see a return to more \"normal\" numbers and horses actually reacting to big efforts (I\'m not holding my breath, LOL)

Another thing to consider: the 5pt adjustment will make your figures appear slower than Ragozin\'s after being a couple of points faster all these years. What turn does the pissing match take with the conversion? Shoot, I can hardly wait.........

[TGJB]

Actually, I waited this long because I figured at some point they would catch up to what\'s going on, and I would then be able to see where the figures leveled off. I am considering waiting until this fall, but I\'m not at all convinced they are going to be able to stop this stuff, and independent of the drug de jour, horses are getting faster, so an eventual move is inevitable.

[sheba87]

When you say \"this stuff\", what are you referring to?

Which drug or drugs do you believe people are using that are making today\'s horses run so much faster?

[TGJB]

When I say \"this stuff\" I mean whatever it is that is enabling certain trainers to get extreme improvement, beyond any reasonable expectations, regularly. It may or may not be a drug, it may or may not be illegal. Most of the things I hear about have to do with oxygen (clenbutoral, EPO etc.), but for all I know there is something else.

Re Irwin\'s BloodHorse column-- he\'s talking about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Getting rid of Lasix won\'t stop the illegal drugs, it will only make it even harder for owners to stay afloat. The problem is finding and stopping the things that are NOT legal now, or should not be.