Ground Loss

[alm]

I've spent the last two years developing a metric to measure the effort-impact of ground loss on horses in races.  I've determined that the impact of ground loss in a turn is significantly greater than ground loss in a straightaway by a factor of about 2-1; not precisely, but close.

Useful discoveries that I made include:
1.   Mature horses run about the same number for all their races on the same surface at similar distances WHEN ADJUSTED FOR GROUND LOSS.
2.   When I can clearly segment runners in a race (3 or 4 standouts with much better figures than all others in the race) I will pick the winner about 90% of the time in horizontal betting, exactas about 40% of the time and trifectas about 20% of the time.
But this is not about my betting.  Let's talk the Triple Crown races.

My adjusted ground loss numbers for Orb last year were 108 going into his Derby (slightly the top in the field) and 117 for his run in the Derby.  He then crashed and burned; the jump was extreme and the bounce was in.

My adjusted numbers for California Chrome were 114 going into his Derby (by far the top in the field) and he ran another 114 in the Derby.  There was NO way that he was going to bounce in the Preakness, but pending the number he earned there we may conclude that he is tailing off for the Belmont.  I'm not sure yet, but I'll let you know.

[TGJB]

Incoming...

[joemama]

Like a scud missile!

[heatherk]

Thanks Alm,but I wouldn\'t let anyone know until after the Belmont, after all the work you put in, you should realize the gain.

[TGJB]

Okay, I\'ll start the ball rolling. Where do you get your ground loss info from? Which tracks are you \"making figures\" for?

That\'s pretty interesting about them running the same figure every time. You and Vito should have a conversation.

[msola1]

Alm,

How do you get ground loss in a straightaway? I can only see a right triangle with a hypotenuse (the presumed ground loss) not very different from the other long side.

And if that\'s not it, what is it and how do you measure it?

Mike

[Boscar Obarra]

\"When I can clearly segment runners in a race (3 or 4 standouts with much better figures than all others in the race) I will pick the winner about 90%\"

 I should hope so. I presume you are suggesting the winner will come from that group, not that you nail THE winner.  If the latter, will you be leasing an extra Brinks truck to carry the cash away?

[Tavasco]

Presumably by starting in gate 12 or 19. Then bobbin and weaving (doing the wicked strong) in the stretch. My pessimist say: This could get ugly. My Optimist says: this could be interesting.

[hooper]

My initial thought was alm\'s post has to be tongue in cheek. Maybe not.

[alm]

I didn\'t expect anyone to leap up and congratulate me for my post and I don\'t intend to explain or defend it, but really Jerry: somebody at TG implied in your Preakness analysis that Social Inclusion was the fastest horse in the race.  That was not true then and it\'s not true now.

I had thought that Chrome had tailed off in the Preakness, visually speaking, but he did not. His SA Derby was slightly faster than his Ky Derby, adjusted for ground loss, and his Preakness was slightly faster.  If I\'m right and he\'s holding his form, he is about 2 - 3 lengths faster than the bunch he\'s running against and will likely beat them in NY.

Tied in a tight group for second behind him are Samraat, Intense Holiday and Commanding Curve.  Slightly behind them is Ride on Curlin and tied for sixth slightly behind him are Social Inclusion and Tonalist.

Like the Derby and the Preakness this race isn\'t worth betting unless you toss the favorite and hope.  That\'s fine if you\'re desperate to bet it, but it\'s not a strategy.  Somewhere on some card at a major track is a 30- 1 shot who looks impossible due to recent races in which it lost ground substantially, but actually has the top figure in the race.  I have had more than my share of them since I got serious with this last August.

Good hunting.

[Bet Twice]

alm wrote

> 2.   When I can clearly segment runners in a race (3
> or 4 standouts with much better figures than all
> others in the race) I will pick the winner about
> 90% of the time in horizontal betting, exactas
> about 40% of the time and trifectas about 20% of
> the time.

So, when you are able to identify 3 or 4 horses in a race that are head and shoulders above the rest and bet them ALL, you have a high hit rate?  I would certainly hope so......kind of an irrelevant stat.  The question you should be asking/bragging about is what is the ROI?

[TGJB]

Until you start answering some basic questions a) don\'t post any more nonsensical assertions here, and b) you won\'t be taken seriously anyway. By anyone.

[sekrah]

Bet Twice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> alm wrote
>
> > 2.   When I can clearly segment runners in a race
> (3
> > or 4 standouts with much better figures than
> all
> > others in the race) I will pick the winner
> about
> > 90% of the time in horizontal betting, exactas
> > about 40% of the time and trifectas about 20%
> of
> > the time.
>
> So, when you are able to identify 3 or 4 horses in
> a race that are head and shoulders above the rest
> and bet them ALL, you have a high hit rate?  I
> would certainly hope so......kind of an irrelevant
> stat.  The question you should be asking/bragging
> about is what is the ROI?


The Top 4 public choices hit at greater than 80%.  They don\'t need to \"clearly segment runners in a race\" for that to hold up.

[bellsbendboy]

I have no opinion on Alm\'s claims as I do not often employ the integer approach to \'capping, though agree recognizing and understanding patterns and form cycles are vital to ones\' success.

For me class is a more important commodity and I would opine if you are looking for real nonsense check out the Rags board on class, on 5/15.  bbb