Limited Choices

[TGJB]

We\'re putting up the three big Fair Grounds races from last Saturday, with the numbers they ran, for a couple of reasons. First of all, while I was away there was a lot of discussion about pace affecting the performances, and some performances being better or worse than they looked-- without offering any opinion on the specific cases, see how the three different pace scenarios affected the final figures, or did not.

Secondly, take a look at how tight the figures come out-- remember that the relationships between the horses are prescribed by beaten lengths, weight and ground loss relationships. If we change one horse in a race, we have to change the others by the same amount (and incidentally, although the track was changing speed throughout the day, those 3 races were at about the same speed-- our clocker had the Derby going a couple of fifths slower than the track time). See what happens if you add or subtract a couple of points from each race, even without tying the races together-- it doesn\'t work.

Now, these are stake horses, which are very easy to work with-- but this is what I mean by the level of the decisions being very sophisticated. If we distorted the figures due to High Limit getting a soft trip, for example, the figures would not hold together as they do.

Click on the following link to view or download the sheets.

http://www.thorograph.com/hold/fg031205.pdf

TGJB,

> If we distorted the figures due to High Limit getting a soft trip, for example, the figures would not hold together as they do.<

This is a misunderstanding of the point.

Your figure would be totally accurate for how fast the horse ran. However, if the conditions were highly favorable for running fast, the figure itself would overrate the performance relative to what would have been earned under tougher conditions. If several of recent races were similar trips, then (all else being equal) the figures would pair up but both/all would overrate his ability under more average conditions.

In High Limit\'s case I will express a clear cut opinion.

His performance in this last race may be a 1 in terms of speed, but it was not as good as the typcial horse that earns a 1.

He earned his 1 with a loose lead, in a moderate pace, on a track that may have been inside speed favoring. All those conditions tend to enhance a horse\'s ability to run his fastest possible speed figure.

If he comes back next time is pressed on the lead by a quality horse and runs a 3. IMO, it won\'t be a bounce. It will be a similar performance even though he ran slower.

If he comes back next time is pressed on the lead by a quality horse and runs another 1 (or better), it won\'t be a pair up. He will be a lightly raced 3YO 2nd off a layoff that moved forward a bit.  

This is obviously a subjective difference of opinion on how some things like pace and trip can impact final time and can account for variances in speed figures that are usually referred to as bounces or moves forward.



Post Edited (03-17-05 16:43)

[TGJB]

I didn\'t misunderstand your position at all.You made another point-- that in the case of runaway winners, we give the winner a better figure than he deserves to give the others decent figures. Look carefully at the Derby and the Oaks figures, and think about that.

[jmiller]

I have been using T-graph for a long time, and The Sheets before that, and still do.  But since you guys are talking pace, I wonder if any of you have seen this pace figures guy that has a new site?  I don\'t know exactly what he is measuring, but I assume it has something to do with pace and speed combined from what I can tell.  You can\'t argue with the results, and now I use both Tgraph and the pace figures stuff to look at most races.  Does anyone know about this place?  I kind of stumbled on it accidentally looking for something else a few months ago.

[TGJB]

What site, and can\'t argue with what results?

[jmiller]

pacefigures.com

He has had four rules up that he uses to bet every race for the four tracks he posts, and is showing a decent profit, 15% or so.  Its under weekend results.  I\'ve been tracking the weekday results and they are just as good.  This week has been over 20%, and that is every race, I kid you not.

He does say if you write that he does not bet this way, just a guideline to show how good the numbers are.

TGJB,

>I didn\'t misunderstand your position at all.You made another point-- that in the case of runaway winners, we give the winner a better figure than he deserves to give the others decent figures.<

OK. That\'s another issue. It\'s a \"potential\" problem and would (\'if\' true) explain why some of your runaway winners have huge figures relative to other figure makers.

It\'s difficult to describe except numerically. I also cannot point to any specific race because I would have to know if you broke the race out. I just believe that some of the major discrepancies I have seen involved lightly raced big winners that towered over their field. That\'s why I raised the question.    

Here\'s the \"potential problem\" using Beyer figures *just because that\'s the way I think when using pace figures).

Assume these horses are all front runner/pressers and A is a lightly raced huge stickout at this class.

Horse A: Pace - 100  Final Figure - 100
Horse B: Pace - 90   Final Figure - 90
Horse C: Pace - 87   Final Figure - 87
Horse D: Pace - 91   Final Figure - 91

Given these four horses, at 6F, horse A figures to beat B and D by about 4 lengths and horse C by about 5.  He is much better than they are.

Now let\'s suppose horse \"A\" goes out and sets his normal pace. Instead of running their normal paces, B, C, and D go out press A the way they usually do. So instead of running their normal pace they run 100 or close.

Now here\'s the result.

Horse A: Pace - 100  Final Figure - 100
Horse B: Pace - 100   Final Figure - 82
Horse C: Pace - 97   Final Figure - 79
Horse D: Pace - 99   Final Figure - 83

Horse \"A\" wins the race by 7-8 lengths instead of 4-5.

You are now required to make a figure for this race.

Did \"A\" win by 7-8 lengths because he improved and the other 3 ran their typical race or because he ran his typical race and they ran slower.

Without pace figures and a belief in their usefulness and impact, you would probably assume A improved because it is more likely that 1 lightly raced horse got better than 3 consistent horses got worse.

With pace figures it is more likely that \"A\" ran his normal race and B, C, D, ran their normal race also, but a slower final time because they were exhausted by the faster pace.

If you are the type of person that also breaks races out when you make figures, you might give \"A\" a 108 and B, C, and D, figures that correspond to their normal races.

When they all come back B, C, D would return to their normal figures because they would face a normal pace.

You\'d would say \"See the figures were right. They paired up\".  

When \"A\" goes back to his 100, you\'d say \"he ran too fast last time and bounced\".

However, he never really earned a 108. You just gave him a 108 to make sense out of the slower performaces of the horses that were cooked by his fast pace.

There aren\'t many races like this and usually there are enough quality closers in the race to clarify the situation. However, that\'s not always the case.

His pace figures are pretty darn good and unfortunately for me, if they become too popular they will kill a lot of great bets for me.

[Kasept]

http://www.pacefigures.com/

The guy\'s name is CJ.. He\'s a regular poster at Pace Advantage and very knowledgeable and pleasant, (if a bit cynical..)

We actually had an exchange today over Lost/Fog because he said Aleo was foolish not to have sold the horse if he wasn\'t going TC event(s) with him. I argued that octogenarian Aleo was thrilled to have perhaps the best sprinter to come along in decades, and would race him in events that were best suited for the colt\'s talents.. A rare prudent decision from a sophomore horse owner these days..

(JB.. Thanks for sharing the FG nums.. I was VERY curious how the Derby translated as I thought people were being harder on the \"also rans\" than they needed to be..)



Post Edited (03-17-05 18:12)

[kev]

Hey CTC, Watch out for WANDERING BOY next out...Got that bounce I was hoping for. I got a move on Real Dandy just wasn\'t large enough.

Kev,

>Hey CTC, Watch out for WANDERING BOY next out...Got that bounce I was hoping for.<

I believe Wandering Boy will come back with a much improved effort next time out if he is spotted against horses of similar ability. He was cooked by Badge of Silver\'s (a superior horse) hot pace.

[TGJB]

CH-- I haven\'t got time now to go into it, but you are missing my point entirely. I know what your position is-- you have made it clear enough. Mine is that those of you out there who don\'t have all the data-- ground and weight corrections-- don\'t have the ability to accurately assess the question, and the examples you cite are way too simplistic. In the FG races you had 3 completely different pace scenarios, and all the horses ran very tight to their figures once you worked out the corrections-- there is no way, for example, that someone would have known how well Kansas City Boy ran without that stuff. Or to put it another way, when you make the corrections and look at the figures the horses ran in the three races, it appears that the pace made no difference at all, while ground loss made a big difference.

As far as Wandering Boy goes, the simplest way to look at it is that he ran to the same level he had in two of his last 3 races.

And whether we break out a race or not-- when you get figures that come out as tight as these did, right down the line, they are right, and the figures they are based on are right. Either that or it\'s one hell of a coincidence.

TGJB,

My examples have to be simplistic because the impact of pace is a complicated enough issue without adding in weight and ground loss.

That\'s why I kept it on a theoretical basis.

None of the stakes races at FG fit into the category I was describing, but Wandering Boy as an individual horse definitely does. There is no question in my mind at all that his hard effort against Badge of Silver early caused him to run a slower final time than he would have had he been matched up against a horse of similar ability to himself in a slower pace on the front end.

He did not bouce. He ran another big race. He just recorded a slower final time because he used himself harder early this time than last time.  

He was just one horse among many contenders.  So that single horse could not distort the figure given to the race. But if all the contenders had battled BOS on the front end it could.

I\'ll drop it and move on.



Post Edited (03-17-05 19:08)

[TGJB]

That\'s not why I say it\'s simplistic-- I\'m talking about your appraisal of the figure relationships, and how we determine them. Which is no slight-- an outsider can\'t know this stuff unless he pays trackmen all over the place, hires people to input huge amounts of day to day data, and works for an extended period of time with the product of all that. The figure relationships are often not what they appear to the outsider, unless the outsider is someone who has been using all our data for a long time, knows the formulas, ground, etc.


Just for future reference, whether you are right or not, \"there is no doubt in my mind\" and \"we know that this effort was better because of the pace\" (paraphrase), which I noticed while I was away, are not evidence. That\'s why I said \"appears\" before when talking about cause and effect relationships.

[miff]

\" there is no way, for example, that someone would have known how well Kansas City Boy ran without that stuff. Or to put it another way, when you make the corrections and look at the figures the horses ran in the three races, it appears that the pace made no difference at all, while ground loss made a big difference\"

Kansas City Boy ran well to you as a figure maker by your formula. He was totally empty and the fact that he was caught wide in a modest pace and received a 4(only three lenghts) off the winner is a very weak fig from a future handicapping standpoint to anyone with any breadth of knowledge.

Ken Mcpeek told me he couldn\'t believe KCB was that \"empty\" since he trained fantastic. At no point in the race did KCB grab the bit.KCB is the poster boy for horses that receive good figs mainly for ground loss only.