Nyquist - please win the Preakness

[pizzalove]

I agree with some of this.  I think when TGJb says \"an X is coming\" he means very soon probably in the next two races.  I also agree with this.  

I don\'t know if Nyquist is a better derby winner than AP or not.  There is also a chance that he was running on a souped up track.  But I will say that if AP was running close to fractions of 45 and change in his derby he would not have won.  Or if Danzig Candy had run last year there would of been no triple crown winner.

I personally California Chrome would of destroyed either one.  

I am also not going to have Nyquist in first or second on any of my tickets.  I did however make the same mistake last year.  Hard headed.

[TGJB]

And by the way, Nyquist\'s figure was also \"ground loaded\", though not to quite the same degree.

You either believe in geometry or you don\'t. I know the \"argument\", but that\'s what it comes down to. Some of those \"ground loaded\" horses get the same wide trip again, due to running style, rider or instructions. But they did what they did.

[ringato3]

TGJB,

You have a product with a methodology, which becomes the way you measure performance.  I respect that.  Otherwise wouldn\'t use the product and post on the board.

That said, for some of us, your figures are a PART of the way we measure performance, not the only input.  Nyquist pressed a much faster pace than AP did.  Not even close.  Last year\'s derby was a \"merry go round\" race.  The top 3 ran around the track together, with AP proving best of the 3.  The Beyer figures between the two Derbies are similar, the main reason you have AP faster is the ground loss, which I get.  But the race flow/pace Nyquist faced isn\'t factored into your figure, nor is the fact that the pace went 1-2-3 all the way around the track last year.  For some of us, the ground loss sort of nets to the soft pace.  I am not saying Nyquist\'s derby was better.  I think they are similar.  

On a related thread, a number on this board questioned the Wood figure.  Not that Andy Serling is any kind of \"end all\", but he was railing on the variant \"many figure makers\" used for the Wood day prior to the Peter Pan yesterday.  Said he expected them to correct the figures soon.  (or that they should - I forget the exact words).  Watching how the Wood horses ran in the Derby and how the Peter Pan winner ran yesterday (nowhere near the negative 2), wondering if you are looking at Wood day again?

Rob

[miff]

Andy Beyer and Mark Hopkins could not make heads or tails of the Wood, the Beyer came an unimaginable 85( like TG 6) After wrestling with the raw data, they decided to use creative license to \"make\" the figure.

It is doubtful that the track changed speed by that much from the filly 9f race.The extreme early pace of the Wood took a huge toll late on the winner, last 1/8th in 14 seconds.Also if the track slowed as much as thought here there is no way the horses run that fast the first half.

[TGJB]

Saying other things matter is not the same as saying ground loss does not.

It wasn\'t just ground loss, I had last year\'s Derby faster than Beyer and Ragozin, and the evidence is clear I was right. Not just because AP ran back to that figure twice (with less ground loss), especially indicative given how few 3yos run neg 3, but because of Keen Ice and the others.

Nothing you could do with the Wood could make it fit for the Derby, nothing that\'s happened so far makes me think it\'s wrong. If a lot of the field doesn\'t get back to that level down the line I would take a look at it. But I don\'t expect it to be an issue. I don\'t know what conclusion he thinks you\'re supposed to draw from the Peter Pan winner, I\'ll ask him when I see him.

Re Miff\'s post, I didn\'t do the filly race that much different, and tracks change far more than that in less time every day, even without water in the track and a lot of wind.

[miff]

Mick Peterson would wholeheartedly disagree with that assertion.

[TGJB]

That is factually wrong. And that\'s not an assertion. Ask him, he was one of the people I went to for \"Changing Track Speeds\".

[miff]

Put it this way, according to Peterson, if one is using multiple variants on a \"normal\" day, you\'re on a slippery slope.

There\'s no such thing as a track changing speed several times on a normal day, sans weather, maintenance changes.Most importantly,without very sophisticated equipment there is no way to identify if a track changed and by how much.Going off the horses previous races is without any merit in determining if a change in track speed has occurred.

[TGJB]

Wrong on all counts. Watch \"Changing Track Speeds\" for his input. He said specifically in an email to me, which I quoted there, that using the horses is the best way to go.

[miff]

Using the horses previous races to make a variant today?  Works on Mars only.

[TGJB]

All figure makers do that, the only difference is some use averages more than others. Until they make a machine that goes over the track (all of it), during (not before or after) each race, and measures energy return to an extremely accurate degree, regression analysis is the only way to do it.

Strongly suggest you watch \"Changing Track Speeds\" so we\'re all starting with an understanding of how we do what we do. And keep in mind how small the things we measure are-- if a mile is 100 seconds, a 1% difference is a full second. We\'re talking about fifths, and tracks changing speed that much, or that little.

[Furious Pete]

How else would you do it? If you\'ve ever tried to make figures yourself you would see both that tracks change speed all the time, and that you might as well ask a monkey to throw darts for what variant you should use, if you are going to commit to a single one barring a storm. I think it\'s incredible that people still reject these ideas.

[miff]

Pete,

Tell me you are kidding. I know most of the top fig makers who make variants every day and they don\'t have 3-4 different ones during the day. At best, they may split a day now and then.

[Furious Pete]

They might have worked 40 years ago

[TGJB]

You got me there, I don\'t know 3 or 4 top figure makers. Didn\'t even know there were three or four.

Ragozin famously does not, which is why his figures are often out there on an island. He just assumes the track doesn\'t change speed, because, well, he knows it doesn\'t. Whatever Peterson and the rest of the people who have studied racing surfaces say. Which is why they are not a top figure maker.

Beyer didn\'t do it much until I gave the presentation at the DRF Expo, where he was sitting right next to me. Right after that I saw them starting to change what they did. They definitely have tracks changing speed.