One Last Time

[alm]

I think that most of the responses to my post about the effect of ground loss on a horse's time in a race were snarky and abusive.  That's ok because it's kind of what this board is about.

But what if my claims were well founded?  What if I really have been able to establish a useful metric for this otherwise elusive fact about racing?  What if you just suspended your disbelief to ask 'what if this guy is telling the truth?'

Curiosity should alone be enough for you to ask a few questions; to get under the claim to an understanding of what I am saying.  Maybe I can help you understand this if I put it in different terms.

There are two laws of physics at work in a horse race that tend to slow a horse down if it has to battle against them.  Without getting scientific, let me point them out.  In a straight-away a horse loses its momentum when it has to change paths to get in the clear.  Angling in or angling out have the same effect.  I've determined that the loss of time or speed is about one percent for each path that a horse has to cross to get clear in a straight-away.

In a turn there is a different force at work.  A horse has to battle against the force to keep its path and stay in line during a turn.  This is especially difficult because there is NO straight line in a turn path; the ground loss is continuous.  I've estimated that a horse loses about four percent of its time or speed if it has to race in the 2 path in a turn and another single percent for each additional path that it is forced out.

These may seem like small amounts of speed loss, but they add up.  Especially in a two turn or three turn race.  When you add the time back in to a horse's speed it tends to smooth out the wildly varying times they show for multiple races over the same distance and the same surface.  The calculation gives you a view of the horse's basic ability under a specific set of conditions.

I made a comment that this is mostly true with mature horses, because younger horses tend to improve greatly as they learn more and get stronger from race to race.  There is no hard metric that helps predict this.  But even with younger horses, this approach separates the contenders pretty well.

There is so much data available about racing that all that I've done is grapple with some of it in order to understand it better.  This is not an attack on the TG metrical base.  It's just a little bit more insight.  And it does result in the outcomes that I discussed previously. If you don't believe it, I am sorry for your loss.

[richiebee]

Without being snarky or abusive, I will pose the same query that I have posed
on this board in relation to the way TG measures, and possibly overemphasizes
at times, ground loss:

If a runner is racing wide in order to avoid traffic or a dead part of the
racing strip, is ground loss necessarily a negative? On the other hand, ground
loss can result from a horse bearing out, even slightly, which might be the
result of the need for an equipment change, a stronger rider or addressing a
physical infirmity.

So now I have expanded the inquiry to not only (a) was the ground loss truly
detrimental and (b) what were the underlying causes of the ground loss, which
might prove more significant long term than the ground loss in one race itself.

You say the effect of your metric is increased when horses are running two and
three turn races, but the only race that 80% of posters care about now is the
one turn race to be run at Belmont on June 7.

\"It does result in the outcomes that I discussed previously. If you don\'t
believe it I am sorry for your loss.\"

I will need to see more empirical amplification on your part before accepting
your condolences.

[jerry]

In the fifth paragraph regarding loss of time and speed around turns you say the wider the horse runs the more time and speed he loses. I understand the loss of time due to the longer running distance, but I don\'t understand the loss of speed. It seems to me a horse running 25mph in the 2 path is no different from a horse running 25mph in the 4 path. They\'re both running the same speed just not the same distance which is nothing more than ground loss.

[TGJB]

He didn\'t mean that kind of question (or the ones I\'ve asked), he means the kind that accept his unproven assertions.

[Bet Twice]

Alm - you seem to make an annual appearance around this time of year and discuss your numbers.  You regularly make general statements about how your figures are superior but provide no detail on why that is the case or offer any evidence to back it up.  When specific questions are asked, you choose not to answer, instead reiterating your original claims.  I\'m a little puzzled why you choose to post on this site - you do realize this is related to tg figs?  Do you have a specific critique of what jerry and team should be doing differently so that he can respond?  Are you trying to sell something?  Or do you just like to stir things up?

[smalltimer]

I re-read all three of your posts on this topic and wonder if you\'re in the right forum.

Some of the guys here do win on occasion and when you say in your May 21 post, \"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.\"  Then can you explain how I managed to NOT toss the favorite and am still holding on to several $ 340.00 exactas, several $ 1,700.00 tri\'s and a couple of $ 7,500 supers?  Had I followed you\'re suggestion, I would have just passed on the race. Others using TG had very profitable Derby\'s even though Chrome was on their tickets also. 100% of the people on this board WILL bet the Derby every single year, as well as the Preakness AND the Belmont regardless of how daunting the task to cash may be.

You continued on that same May 21 post by saying, \"I didn\'t expect anyone to leap up and congratulate me for my post and I don\'t intend to explain or defend it.\"  Huh? Seems when people chose not leap up and congratulate you  about your concept you did choose to try to explain and defend it.

In your May25 post you say, \"The calculation gives you a view of the horses basic ability under a specific set of conditions.\"  What happens when the conditions change in that horse race?  I doubt any horse racing in a race and his subsequent race will under the same specific set of conditions.

You\'ve spent a lot of time on this concept and if it works for you then bravo.

You almost imply that the ground loss figures that Jerry and TG supply are inferior to your concept, if that\'s the case then start your own website and see if others are interested in using your methodology. To me, TG offers the best ground figures I\'ve seen, its just one more puzzle I don\'t have to unravel because it\'s already done for me. I, like most others, don\'t have the time to watch every race and put a magnifying glass on each and every horse in order to determine which horse is in which path.

Keep up the good work alm, I\'m not being snarky I just think you need to go to a site where there\'s a lot less knowledgeable base of people to convince.

Good luck

[TGJB]

I\'m still trying to figure out where he gets the ground loss on straightaways from, let alone all the stuff that comes after.

As far as time lost on turns goes, he\'s reinventing the wheel. I don\'t think there\'s been anyone even making their own figures (let alone selling them) for 75 years who hasn\'t built in a turn correction. I think we use 3 or 4/5ths, changes slightly with distance (they\'re moving slower in longer races), would have to check to be sure.

What this means in practice is that for your speed chart to make sense the relationship has to be 3 points different between 6f and a mile at tracks with a one turn mile than where there is the usual two turn mile. When you get into angled chutes (Widener turf etc.) you deal with fractions of that.

[ajkreider]

How do you translate that one percent into speed for the race?  In the turns this can be approximated well enough because we know how long the turn is.  I assume you don\'t mean switching paths on the straight adds 1% to the total time (that would be a lot).  If its some momentum measure, wouldn\'t you have to know the mass of the horse?  Why couldn\'t a horse regain that momentum?

etc.

[smalltimer]

alm,
I have to post one more time about your topic.

I checked out a few of your past posts prior to the Derby, including your Derby selections.
2012 Alpha, Hansen, Gemologist;
2011 Soldat, Uncle Mo, Mucho Macho Man;
2010 Sidney\'s Candy, Awesome Act;
2008 Colonel John, with Big Brown a toss
In 4 separate years, you crushed the Derby with a total of MMM in the super.

I\'m not sure what your think your revolutionary concept is, but with results like that I just gotta say no thanks. Now I understand why you think the Derby is a race not worth betting.

Look forward to reading your newest concept sometime after the 2015 Derby.

By the way, you PROMISED JB in 2012 that you wouldn\'t continue to talk about your homemade numbers, remember?

[Dick Powell]

In track and field, the runners run the same distance regardless of the lane in the 200 meter and 400 meter dashes. There is no ground loss; the staggered start insures that. But, nobody want to draw the inside lanes since it is harder to maintain top speed with the turn(s) being tighter. Lane eight would be the most preferable since it has the widest turns but it\'s a negative psychologically since you can\'t see the competition. When given a choice, everybody wants lane four.

Years ago, when Roosevelt had the International Trot, these monsters would come from France and since the 1/2 mile track was so tight compared to what they were used to, they would trot first over in lane two around all four turns and still win. If they drew the rail or wound up on the inside, they had trouble getting around the turns. Une de Mai comes to mind for any oldtimers out there.

In Animal Kingdom\'s Kentucky Derby win, Trakus showed that the two horses that raced widest of all finished first and second.

Just a few anecdotes of the inside not always being the place to be. The problem is anecdotes are not easily quantifiable.

[twoshoes]

Except that ALM just taught me that the Belmont Balcony Move never worked, so I need to erase a lot of history and get my head straight.

[moosepalm]

alm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
 If you don't believe it, I am sorry for your loss.


Yeah, the reason for snarky remarks totally eludes me, too.

[bellsbendboy]

Appreciated the post Dick, would reply that the inside is seldom the place to be.  

My own estimate is that 80% of the breed runs their best outside of horses.

The weekday turf heats and precipitation driven maintenance aside, ground loss, ground coffee and ground under repair are similar in that once you use it once ... you discard it!

bbb

[TGJB]

Yeah, you\'re another one. Show me the data behind the 80% estimate.

[Boscar Obarra]

So if I remember Une de Mai I\'m an old timer?

 Never heard of \"him\"