ROTW---INDIANA DERBY

[TGJB]

classhandicapper wrote:

> It is apparent you do not want to not ackowledge or discuss
> the way some things impact race results and times because they
> can\'t be measured with the same precision as other factors. You
> would rather simply ignore them.

I\'ve been happy to discuss them. I won\'t accept your theories without back-up, and I won\'t accept hand picked red-boarded examples as significant, since it\'s really easy to find examples that \"prove\" the opposite, like the failure of the other closers in the Travers to run well.

 
>
> Personally, I don\'t know a single handicapper with more than
> a few years of experience that doesn\'t acknowledge the impact
> of pace on both results and time.

I know LOTS of PROFESSIONAL handicappers who disagree, with the exception of the extreme examples I mentioned in the early stages of this discussion.


>
> It really doesn\'t matter whose figures you are using. You can
> usually get a reasonable guage on who the contenders are going
> in even if the figures you are using aren\'t as accurate as
> \"your figures\".

Clearly not true, or so many pros would not be paying more for our stuff (and Ragozin for that matter), they would just use Beyer. I would estimate that at least 80% of the pros use one set of sheets or the other.



>
> You then watch the race race development. Somtimes the
> extremeness of the pace is very apparent - so is its effect on
> the outcome.

Ah yes, \"sometimes\", \"extremeness\", \"apparent\", and \"effect\". Nothing like hard facts.


 
>
> Second, it is also abundently clear that two brilliant speed
> handicappers can subjectively analyze the results of a few
> races and come to different conclusions about how fast the
> track was and what the figure should really be.

Take out \"brilliant\" and I agree with you. So?



>
> Third, after you make your subjective figure, if the way the
> horses run coming out of that race indicates that the figure
> was wrong, you are better off fixing it than making excuses for
> every horse or saying they all improved.


Even if I accepted the idea that it\'s a good idea to go back and change figures, it would be done using future FIGURES, meaning super accurate ones using weight and ground, not just the subjective viewing of future races. And I certainly wouldn\'t be basing it on what horses did in their next start, which would be anti-theory, since the whole reason we put figures on graphs is that horses do NOT put in the same performance every time out.






>
> Grand Hombre ran exactly as I expected. He\'s a pretty good
> horse that spotted the winner a few lengths because of his wide
> trip. That was good enough to beat him.  The other horses
> coming out of the PA Derby finished up the track - further
> indicating that the PA Derby was not as fast as thought.


Please. See above, and AGAIN, all you have to do is give us examples before the race. There is a ROTW every week, feel free.



>
> Toccet also ran horribly (though we all agreed he would have
> to improve a real lot to run well in that spot) further
> indicating the PA Derby was not that strong.


Huh? If anything it indicates TOCCET is not that strong, which is one reason the Pa. Derby was a great betting race.


 
>
> In fact, the only horse to run huge coming out of the PA
> Derby was Dynever who made a huge close off a slow pace into a
> reasonable fast race - because he didn\'t like the mud the night
> of the PA Derby and did not fire that night.


Absolutely, that proves it. Those of us who thought it was a GOOD performance were disproved when he ran back to roughly that figure (probably) at the Meadowlands. That aside, see if you can count the assumptions and subjective judgements in that one sentence. I came up with eight.

[bdhsheets]

yo classhandicapper:

If you had just taken the time to look at the Meadowlands Cup sheets, you\'d know how off base you are. Dynever\'s PA Derby was a lifetime best figure and his pattern very explosive for another good effort. Your assumptions of the PA Derby being a bad race just doesn\'t hold.

Good luck, you\'ll really need it.

On several occasions I suggested to you that perhaps your figures misrepresented the actual performance of the horses.  

One was the Travers, where a fast pace hurt both duelers that clearly had much tougher trips than in their prior races. In looking at your figures, I suspected that you made the Travers figures too fast and gave Ten Most Wanted too much credit for that performance - probably because you didn\'t take into account the impact of the pace on Peace Rules and the ease of trip for Ten Most Wanted. (but I am not a mind reader)

Other sources of speed figures like Beyer, Logic Dictates,  etc. also seemed to suggest that was the case. So it wasn\'t just me.  

At the same time, I also suggested that it was extremely difficult (for everyone) to make the WV Derby figure because it rained just prior and during the race. However, other figure makers were making that race faster than you did and I did not think either interpretation was conclusive. This is not an exact science.  

Finally, I said the PA Derby was also suspect for similar reasons and that Dynever did not like the slop that night.  HE DID NOT RUN A LIFETIME TOP IN AN EXTREMELY FAST RACE.

In the past, you trashed me for coming forward after the race with my interpretations of prior results and figures.

So this time beforehand I tell you Dynever will run big at the Meadowlands because you are underrating him and all the other horses coming out of the PA Derby will not run at well as you think.

Dynever then runs a huge race closing off  the slow pace in a fast race at the Meadowlands against older. Other than him, the other supposedly fast horses out of the PA Derby all finish up the track beaten badly or lose at even money.

If you want to ignore my observations, go right ahead. You are welcome to make things up about those results in order to satisfy your own arrogance about your figure making.

I know everyone bounced. Everyone moved forward blah blah blah.

The reality is that making figures is TOUGH and we all make mistakes. I happen to be looking at multiple sources of info and have made figures myself for many years. I also  happen to be focusing 100% of my energy on stakes. So when there are huge discrepencies
I take notice (and I do look at paths etc..) and watch the subsequent results.  

That\'s how I find my own errors.

What I never do is ignore tons of evidence that I am wrong about a figure just to satisfy my own ego.

If everyone coming out of the PA Derby ran well, I would be the first one here to tell you I was wrong.

>Good luck, you\'ll really need it.<

I have a significant edge over the game playing stakes races exclusively.

The way I achieve that edge is in the realization that people look at their own figures, trips, etc... (whatever method they use) and assume they are always right.

What I have found is that on some occasions figures and information is solid as a rock and on others it is \"highly suspect\". By suspect I mean some days and/or races are tougher to make accurate figures for because of pace, weather, distance, wind etc..  We all know that.

\"HOWEVER\" handicappers view all the information the same all the time as if it is all equally accurate.

I observe the suspect figures and races and study them to death in an effort to determine beforehand what the reality is.

You simply cannot do that for the many many dozens of races around the country. But you can do to for specific types - like stakes or maidens in NY etc...

Then I observer the results closely and adjust my opinions when I am wrong fro future refernce and bets.

In this particular case, there is not doubt in my mind that the PA Derby was not as fast as thought around here and that Dynever ran poorly that night because of the slop.

Every single horse out of the PA Derby has disappointed relative that supposed super fast race EXCEPT DYNEVER.

 >>Toccet also ran horribly (though we all agreed he would have  to improve a real lot to run well in that spot) further
 indicating the PA Derby was not that strong. <<<


>Huh? If anything it indicates TOCCET is not that strong, which is one reason the Pa. Derby was a great betting race. <

I never said that Toccet was a good bet in the PA Derby. I also said he was an underlay. What I did say was that I wasn\'t 100% certain he ran \"his\" best race there because it was in the slop.

What I meant on my above comment was that the PA Derby figure you DID GIVE HIM was not so slow as to make it certain he would finish dead last and totally buried. So that is another peformance out of the PA Derby that does not support it being an extremely fast race for 3yo Grade 3 horses in the fall. Just as the Indiana Derby horses also indicate - with 2 finishing up the track and Grande Hombre running very well, but not as fast as the PA Derby.

>Boy, if only you had told us how you thought Grand Hombre would run BEFORE the race we might take it seriously! I guess you didn\'t have room in those posts yesterday.<

I DID!!!!!!!.

I said Grand Hombre was not as good as your figures indicated, but the field was so weak he could probably contend anyway. However, I though he might get beat by the outside post.

By the way, just read through this whole thread. My opinion on the PA Derby and Grand Hombre was quite clear BEFORE THE RACE - JUST LIKE YOU REQUESTED.  


>Boy, if only you had told us how you thought Grand Hombre would run BEFORE the race we might take it seriously! I guess you didn\'t have room in those posts yesterday.<

I DID!!!!!!!.

I said Grand Hombre was not as good as your figures indicated, but the field was so weak he could probably contend anyway. However, I though he might get beat by the outside post.

[TGJB]

I could carve you up again, but it would be a waste of time--if you could not (or would not) understand the distinctions I made before, you won\'t now. As a guy who has made his living exclusively using and/or making this kind of data his entire adult life (I\'m guessing you don\'t), I strongly suggest you make a serious attempt to understand what I was saying. In the meantime, feel free to offer opinions before any races, but any red-boarding will be deleted.

Red Boarding?  Read the darn thread. My opinions on your PA Derby figures and the Indiana Derby were clear prior the race. So are the results. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that you overrated that race. Oh yea, sorry, I can\'t prove it beyond a showdow of a doubt. I can only say beforehand you overrated it and watch all the horses run like crap. How about proving you were right despite all the evidence against?    

I have now lost respect for you.

You won\'t have to delete any of my messages. I will leave voluntarily because it is clear you do not wish to discuss any race results or figures that might shed your own work and methodology as anything less than pure perfection no matter what the results of the races suggest.  

1. You won't consider Beyer speed figures that suggest that individual races were either faster or slower than you suggest (even though you are very willing to publicly criticize specific ones like the WV Derby as being too fast because they missed the fact that it was raining)

2. You won't consider my proclamation that speed figures I purchase from Logic Dictates suggest that individual races were either faster or slower than you suggested.

3. You won't consider that 2 sources disagree with you.

4. You won't accept any proclamation by me that a specific pace was very fast or slow and might have impacted the final time of some of the participants despite the clear visual evidence, fractions, and results of the race relative to their form and your figures coming in.

5. You won't accept any race results that conflict with you own figures as being evidence that your figure might have been wrong EVEN IF those results are very much in line with the figures and opinions presented by others prior to the race or as a post-mortem.

6. My guess is that even if almost every horse coming out of a suspect race ran just like I said it would based on YOUR SUBSEQUENT FIGURES for them, you would interpret that as them ALL BOUNCING or ALL IMPROVING and not that the specific race in question was wrong to begin with.

You are right about one thing. I do not make my living betting. I make a few dozen bets each year in stakes races on which I have averaged between a 40%-50% profit for the last 8 years. That comes out to less than I earn working in data processing. So I continue to work and play horses casually - taking advantage of other people\'s arrogance.

[TGJB]

It\'s been great. Feel free to post those opinions in advance, I don\'t think anyone here will kill your price.

When you make the figures for all the horses coming out of PA Derby, post them along side the figures those same horses earned \"in the PA Derby\" according to you.  

Then let me know if you \"still\" think the PA Derby was an \"super extremely fast\" race for 3YO Grade 3 horses at this time of year in which Dynever ran a new top but got killed anyway because the others were so good.

Maybe you will change your mind and conclude you overestimated it - as I suggesed to you \"BEFORE\" the race.

I\'d also love to see your figure for Dynever in the Meadowlands race. I will post the Beyer as soon as it is available - just for discussion purposes. I know you think it is worthless.  

We will see if Dynever\'s figure at the Meadowlands (your and Beyers) is more in line with my expressed opinion that you may have underrated the WV Derby and that he had in fact had run poorly in the PA Derby.  

Personally, in looking at the result of the Med race, my first impression based on the huge gap between Valponi and the rest of that field (which was not all that weak) was that Valponi did not run all that bad. He ran OK, but got beat by two horses that ran extremely well (the winner was first time Jerkens).

>Feel free to post those opinions in advance, I don\'t think anyone here will kill your price.<

I can try that, but it will be difficult. I don\'t pick horses. I handicap races and then decide whether the odds are way out of line with my estimation of their chances of winning. So typically I don\'t know if I am going to bet a race until quite close to post time. That would make my task quite difficult since I am trying to get my bet in. :-)

What I can do very easily is make guesstimates about the probabable post time odds and let you know beforehand that I suspect a particlular horse will be very overbet or very underbet.      

That\'s what I did with Grand Hombre - look at the beginning of this thread. I suspected he would be overrated because I did not think he was as fast as commonly thought around here. I also thought the outside post could/would further compromise his chances. I wound up not betting the race because I agreed with the general consensus that Wando wasn\'t all that good either. I didn\'t like anyone else much in terms of a positive opinion. I believe I was right about Grand Hombre being an underlay, it was simply unfortunate for me that I couldn\'t figure out a way to take advantage of it.

[TGJB]

I\'ve got people here begging me not to continue a discussion in which every reader of this board understands the distinctions that you fail to, so I\'m giving you the last word. And it\'s killing me, because you are one easy target.

Just for the heck of it, see if you can find the 8 assumptions/arguable subjective  opinions/givens in that one sentence I mentioned.

>I\'ve got people here begging me not to continue a discussion in which every reader of this board understands the distinctions that you fail to, so I\'m giving you the last word. And it\'s killing me, because you are one easy target.<

All I can say is that your own arrogance is quite astounding.  

I said USE YOUR FIGURES for the PA DERBY and the figures you gave each of those horses coming out of that race. Then we could evaluate the evidence based on your figures which would contain the paths etc... and none of my subective analysis of pace, bias, trip, etc...  We could avoid using someone else\'s figures etc...

I guess I must simply realize that some people are incapable of a discussion about a horse\'s performance that goes beyond a number on a piece of paper that was calculated by you.  

It is no wonder I still find so many overlays despite the high quality of overall information you offer. There seems to be a religious devotion to your number without any consideration that you might be wrong on occasion or that your methodolgy is incomplete or flawed on occasion.

I\'ll tell you what, next time there\'s a massive dead rail bias at Belmont I\'ll be the first to laugh at the extra credit you are giving to horses that raced wide that day relative to rail runners. I\'ll cash my subjectivness at your expense all day long.

If you can\'t understand the subjective nature of making figures and how future results NEVER conclusively prove anything you are being amatuerish.

However, if you totally ignore EVIDENCE you are being idiotic.