Enough Nonsense

[TGJB]

CH-- Not okay.

You said 1) the Hopeful figure was wrong, and 2) the pace affected different horses in the race differently.

1) Even if I were to place credence in the figures other guys were making (without wind, weight, and ground, no less), you would have to show me not just the figures they gave in this race, BUT HOW IT COMPARES TO THE FIGURES THEY GAVE THOSE HORSES IN OTHER RACES, to see whether it held up. And/or how the figures fitted together within this race, and with their previous races, as I did with the FG races. Quoting some figures for THAT race-- which may have been a function of a dogmatic approach like (but not limited to) failing to recognize that tracks change speed (as Ragozin generally fails to do)-- is absolutely meaningless, let alone not rising to the level of evidence. Again, this is what I mean about you not understanding the degree of sophistication here. When I say evidence, I mean evidence, not opinion.

2)Not only did you not offer evidence the pace affected individuals differently within the Hopeful, the evidence shows exactly the opposite, whether you look in relative figure terms or at order of finish. Two of the only three horses who ran well (finished 2-3, ran good figures) ran on the lead, the ones who didn\'t contest the \"hot\" pace, as a group, ran much worse. It\'s the opposite result than what a hot pace would figure to produce.

I don\'t have a problem with your comments about AA and RH tomorrow. But I will point out that we gave RH a much better figure for his two starts before the Remsen that anyone else did (meaning Beyer and Ragozin), and had him running the exact same figure in all 3 races (3 1/2), pace etc. notwithstanding. That would convert to about 90 Beyer or 7 Ragozin for all three.

I\'ll look at future comments as they come up, but be prepared for requests for evidence as required by your statements. Glad to hear you use our data.

TGJB,

I don\'t have all the data required to make the presentation you are asking for because  I don\'t have Andy\'s entire speed figure data base at my disposal accompanied by every pace figure for every horse\'s race and the adjustments I would make to their final time figures.

I can usually only demonstrate the principle at work based on individual performances or certain duels that come up in major stakes now and then etc..

ex: Wandering Boy (before and after a race), my analysis of the pace matchup between Bellamy Road/Dearest Mon at GUL earlier today etc...

I also did it for Afleet Alex. I remembered that race as being an obviously very fast pace visually, fraction wise, and as reported by pace figure makers. I  remembered the slow speed figure assigned to the race by virtually everyone. I also remembered adjusting the Beyer Figure for Afleet Alex \"up\" when he came back in the Champagne because I knew he was negatively impacted by racing too close to that pace.
That adjustment smoothed out what appeared to be a crazy slow Beyer figure for the Hopeful and was verified.

That\'s what prompted the question did you break it out and make it much faster?

When you see the principal at work on an individual horse level with the degree of certainly pre race and result wise that I have seen it for as many years as I have been doing this, it isn\'t necessary for \"me\" to have a sheet on every horse with pace calculations to know I am right. However, I can\'t satisfy your request because I don\'t have the data except for the various comments I can make here or there as the races come up that will support the view consistently.    

I can tell from your last commentary that you are not familiar with the types of adjustments pace figure guys make, when, and by how much. That\'s why you would conclude the data doesn\'t support my view. That much is expected because you don\'t use or believe in this crap to begin with.

If you have a sincere interest in this though, let me suggest pacefigures.com.  

He has a layout that will come closer to your requirements.

Read the commentary about what he is doing. Look at his pace figures, speed figures and performance figures(the combination).

Then look at the results he is producing without any handicapping at all.

http://www.pacefigures.com/weekend.html

He is not doing exactly what I am doing. I  also use visual skills, chart analysis, intermediate fractions and other things. I also have another source for pace figures in NY. Sometimes we have a disagreement on a figure/pace because of that (who doesn\'t), but he\'s the closest I have seen to doing what I am doing and he does it well. In a private conversation he verified to me that he adjusts certain performance figures for closers and slow paces (over and above what is shown) in a way that is identical to my own observations. It\'s hard to explain, but maybe he talks about it on the web page in some of his explanations.

For additional support, I believe several of your customers that post here often use his data also.

If his data does not convince you, I will not be able to either. However, I will keep cashing overlay tickets based on this stuff and I will keep on identifying rare situations where figure makers that are not pace sensitive enough can be lead astray in the figure making process.

I think we can end it on this note.

I hope you will look at his data.



Post Edited (03-18-05 18:41)

[TGJB]

Nope. Fuller answer maybe later, but no one gets to come on this site and say I got a figure wrong, especially a GI at Saratoga, based on their account how good a handicapper they are. Ain\'t gonna happen.

I\'m starting to wonder if you are actually reading what I write. In the case of the Hopeful, you don\'t need anyone\'s entire data base for evidence-- you just need (for example) the DRF pps with Beyers for the horses that ran in that race, both before and after. You don\'t need pace figures at all. We just have to see how the figures for the horses that day stacked up with what they ran before or after

Now, we already have anecdotal evidence as to how that will work out-- you said yourself that you had to upgrade the performances from what Beyer gave them. We also have the pps of Afleet Alex, who is in tomorrow, and we can see that his figure that day was significantly worse than those before or after. Now all we need is to see the other horses in the race-- see how easy that is? When the smoke clears you will see(or should be able to) that the problem wasn\'t pace at all, it was that others didn\'t figure out the track was changing speed.

And, of course, you have completely ignored the other point that I have made at least twice-- the effect of pace in that race, if any, appears to be exactly the opposite of what pace players would claim.

More another time, I\'ve got work to do. But it don\'t come down to a matter of opinion. It comes down to data, and evidence.

[jmiller]

1 AFLEET ALEX 6-5 PS

OP   03/05/2005  6.0 105*
LS   10/30/2004  8.5 103
Bel  10/09/2004  8.5 104
Sar  08/21/2004  7.0 98*
Sar  07/29/2004  6.0 96*
Del  07/12/2004  5.5 90*
Del  06/26/2004  5.5 73*

The pace figures guy has all his races very similar, including having the Hopeful as his fastest race to that point.

Beyer has it as an off race, as you already know.  It looks like you are both getting to the same conclusion via different methods.

TGJB,

If you are trying to drive me off the board, just ban me. It will be easier on me and make you happy because no one will question anything about your methdology!

>You don\'t need pace figures at all. We just have to see how the figures for the horses that day stacked up with what they ran before or after<

NO. You need all speed figures and pace figures in and out for every horse. That is the only way all the performances can be measured and adjusted accurately to know if they are consistent!

If you can\'t understand this, it is hopeless to discuss this issue at all!



Post Edited (03-18-05 19:26)

Jmiller,

>The pace figures guy has all his races very similar, including having the Hopeful as his fastest race to that point.<

Exactly. At least someone gets it.

That is because pacefigures.com goes through the process of giving you a final time figure and performance figure adjusted for the pace. Beyer only gives you the final time figure. You always have to adjust all Beyers for pace yourself if you want to  incorporate it into yor handicapping.

Pacefigures performance rating for the Hopeful is higher and more sensible than the final time figure. He realized that the pace was very fast and caused the slow final time figure. Beyer may also have realized it (as a private trip handicapper), but he doesn\'t provide performance figures publicly.



Post Edited (03-18-05 19:28)

[TGJB]

I may ban you someday, but it won\'t be for this discussion. Because what is happeneing here is that everyone (except possibly you) is learning how to decide whether a figure is indeed correct, and finding out that we got that one correct when everyone else did not. As Miff probably doesn\'t think I recall, he brought up that exact race last fall, thinking we got it wrong.

Anyway-- WRONG. We are not discussing whether the pace figure is right or wrong, and comparing the pace figure to the final figure is apples/oranges. I absolutely stipulate the pace figure is spot on. But in the end, the others you mentioned also gave out final figures-- and they have not held up. Mine did. And that\'s how you know which is right-- that\'s what I mean by evidence, as I have said 5 or 6 times now.

It\'s also why people review races they have problems with, where the figure is in doubt, AND IT\'S HOW THEY DETERMINE WHETHER THEY GOT IT RIGHT. Get it? That\'s how the pros work.
And in fact, there is a big question about  a figure of Afleet Alex right now-- but it\'s his last one. Andy and I both did the same thing, which is cut it loose, and in this case it\'s amazing we did it the same way because both of us tied it not to the day, and not to any solid previous numbers, and we still came out the same. Ragozin tied it to the day, which I know courtesy of the free figs (yippee!) in the Thoroughbred Times-- if I had done that AA would have got about a negative 4, Beyer would have given him about 115 or so. I will be reviewing this one in a couple of months-- BY LOOKING AT WHAT ALL THE HORSES CAME BACK AND RAN. That\'s how you know.

TGJB,

>But in the end, the others you mentioned also gave out final figures-- and they have not held up.<

Because you have neither the data or knowledge to adjust all the final figures  for the Hopeful pace, the previous paces, or the subsequent paces of all the horses to see \"if\" they held up.

Afleet Alex\'s figure obviously held up. Just look at the pacefigures.com \"performance ratings\" (which is the final time speed figures adjusted for pace) for all his races. They indcate that he ran a slower final figure in the Hopeful, but when adjusted for pace he ran his best race to that point - which translates into the race should not have been broken out.

I volunteer to leave myself. You need not ban me. I have had enough of you.

I am sorry to say I believe you have no comprehension of the issue at all. If anything, I am now even less likely to trust any of your figures in controversial races.

You think within a narrow box of final time figures that square away just by adjusting the variant without any consideration for other things might have impacted the time and accounted for a faster or slower race than expected. This is not how I think or handicap.



Post Edited (03-18-05 20:45)

[TGJB]

As I have said on this string and elsewhere, I do believe pace can affect final time. There is no evidence it did so here-- in fact the opposite, given the performances of those who ran near the pace vs. those who did not.

Say hello to our mutual DRF friend for me.

[miff]

JB wrote

\"As Miff probably doesn\'t think I recall, he brought up that exact race last fall, thinking we got it wrong\"

JB,

I do recall questioning the fig in the Hopeful for AA since I was there for both the Sanford and Hopeful and felt the Sanford was better( as did Beyer).How do you determine that you got it right?

No external audit? Isn\'t that a little self serving? Aren\'t you \"backing into\" the confirmation of your fig by rigidly sticking to YOUR guns which are not necessarily without possible error or other reasonable interpretation.

[NoCarolinaTony]

Wow  I missed all the acton today. I see both points. It\'s like two good lawyers trying to prove a poaint. As an old Harness guy I always believed paced dictated who the winner was going to be(although todays harness racing is so different with the gun to the front speed style and see if you last). CH\'s point is valid in that certain horses cannot sustain a certain type of pace and will crumble and look worse on paper, BUT when the same horse has ideal pace conditions it looks like a Graded stakes type, But If Im getting Jerry\'s point, the horse is what he is, if he can\'t stand the heat (so to speak) his final results (pace included) speak for themselves.

If CH want\'s to factor the the fast pace as a positive for that horse is its next race, go for it, but it\'s at your own handicapping discretion.

Lets Face it BOS ran a fast pace and still won. The next one to go head to head better be able to go faster and last....or if the two fast ealy pace horses kill each other well..you know the rest of the story.

I think Jerry is trying to tell us that the horse is what he is, and don\'t try to make them something they are not. Don\'t make excuses for the animal.

I could be wrong, and I am not not speaking for Jerry, but this is how I\'m reading into this. (It could be the Maker\'s mark too...)

Good luck to all this weekend!!-

Nc Tony

[SoCalMan2]

Nice concise review, NoCarolinaTony, Makers Mark notwithstanding.  

I think this discourse is frustrating to all because the examples being used are not very helpful to Classhandicapper\'s case (in fact, these examples blow his case away).  With all due respect, Classhandicapper, I think TGJB has refuted your arguments and you have failed to refute his.  

First, some background.  I think that pace is something that handicappers always have to consider because sometimes it can be of paramount importance.  However, even though I always consider it, for the most part, I think it is irrelevant. I would say that pace considerations change my overall view of a race maybe 1 out of every 10 races I handicap (but that one time it can really alter my opinion sharply).

For the purposes of figure making, there is no question WHATSOEVER that pace should NOT be reflected in final figures.  To the extent pace is relevant, it should be treated the same way a trouble notation is treated.  Relevant information, but not something that is incorporated into the figure assigned.  

The idea that High Limit ran a better figure than he was capable of because of favorable pace conditions makes no sense to me.  He ran the figure he ran, and he was obviously capable of it.  If he had been challenged earlier in the race, maybe he would have run a worse number and that worse number can be excused because of the duel.  However, I want my figure maker to make the number without regard to the duel.  Let me decide how much I want to forgive the off effort due to detrimental pace. People like Classhandicapper are free to think that High Limit is not capable of running a \'1\' because the time he did he had an easy race.  I for one will always consider that High Limit was capable of running the \'1,\' and I do not want my figure maker to screw around with that because of some unquantifiable notion of \'easy.\'  

Classhandicapper, I think that this discourse would be better if you would use examples that benefit your case instead of ones that benefit TGJB\'s case.  Unfortunately, I personally do not know of any such examples right now -- but maybe if somebody did some research they could find some.  I recall that when I did the ROTW, I was very surprised by the race run by Taste of Paradise.  Perhaps that is a horse that from a pace perspective looked live in the race while on the sheets he looked dead.  I do recall looking at some of his SoCal races and being impressed with some of the fractions he ran with some very fast horses.  While I did think he might surprise some people by flashing more early run than expected, I did not expect him to finish as close as he did to horses I thought were clearly going to run better races than him.

[Frank]

SCM2,

\'People like Classhandicapper are free to think that High Limit is not capable of running a \'1\' because the time he did he had an easy race.\'

If CH said that and I missed it I apologize but I don\'t think he said or meant to say that at all.

This is about the science of figure making versus the art of handicapping.

CH - I hope I\'m not about to put wrong words in your mouth. I took from this argument the idea that CH believes that because, in his opinion, High Limit ran a 1 under optimal conditions he will be less likely to reproduce that effort under a different race setup. Isn\'t that handicapping? Isn\'t that different from saying the figure for the FG race was wrong?

CH is also saying that if these pace scenarios were somehow baked into the figures just as ground loss, weight, wind etc. are, the figures would be superior and would blow the competition away. I don\'t agree because I believe that accurately quantifying pace would be far too subjective and is the job of the handicapper and not the figure maker.

I hope I didn\'t misrepresent anyone\'s thoughts too badly here.

Frank

ScMan,

There is a communication issue between what I am saying and what you think I am saying.

I want figures that represent exactly how  fast the horses ran. Period!

That\'s what most figure makers including Jerry try to give us!

Then as a private handicapper, I want to determine if there were aspects of the race that either contributed to an individual horse\'s figure or hurt it. That would be part of my subjective handicapping process. So you and I actually agree. I think Jerry\'s \"1\" for High Limit is entirely appropriate.

When High Limit returns, as a subjectve handicapper I would adjust that figure for my personal belief that it was earned under extremely favorable conditions. I definitely don\'t want Jerry to do that for me and he doesn\'t.

The same is true of Wandering Boy.

Jerry gave me the figure I wanted.

As a subjective handicapper, I believe that Wandering Boy did not put up his best figure in that race because he dueled with a much superior horse in a pace that was too fast for him. So when he returns against softer competition, I will view him differently than someone that is just looking at his numbers. I see no problem with that and I really doubt that Jerry does either.

These are the subjective issues on which Jerry and others might agree or disagree.  Most experienced handicappers would agree with me. People that don\'t believe in some of these pace and trip issues would not. No big deal.  

Those views are not criticisms of his product though. If Jerry started incorporating this subjective stuff right into his figures, it would be a mistake and I \"would\" criticize him.  

So as you can see, I believe some of the discussion was the result of miscommunication and different views on pace that were not a criticism of the product.  

The real point of contention is the occasions when a pace is very extreme or impacts many horses within a single race. When that happens (asuming you believe me when I say it does happen) it is more difficult to interpret the result and for anyone to make a high quality figure. If you do not believe me, then there is no need to read any further. It is simply a theory that most pace handicappers share.

Basically, there are times I believe a race comes up a lot slower than expected because of pace and not because the track changed speed.

If you will grant me the small benefit of the doubt that this occasionally does happen, I do not want the track variant for those races to be broken out so the figures square better. I just want the slow incorrect looking raw figure.  

In these rare cases, I would rather have lumpy inconsistent looking figures that don\'t square because I am making EVEN LARGE personal subjective adjustments related to pace in these cases too.

These adjustments can and often do differ quite sharply from what would happen if you  assumed the track changed speed, broke the variant out and made the race square and the figures look prettier the way Jeery sometimes does.

The reasons are too complex to get into.

So when I question whether a race was broken out or not, I am trying to get at the information I need to make the figures I want because of my different views on the impact of pace and because I might not agree that the track changed speeds.

Personally, I don\'t care if anyone agrees with me on this issue or not. I don\'t care if anyone agrees that the track did or did not change speeds.  

I just need to know if a figure that came up slower for all the other speed figure makers vs. TG was the result of TG breaking out the variant or not.

If I don\'t have that information, I can\'t use the TG figures at all. They would adversely effect my results because I would be making subjective adjustments to figures that were already adjusted for the author\'s belief that the track changed speeds (which I would disagree with).  

If I ask and explain what I am doing and why, I am sure to get tarred and feathered for disagreeing with TG methodology and conclusions about the speed of a race, and for offering no proof of a theory that is making money for a lot of people.

I hope this explains my view better because I won\'t be around much anymore. I am going into self imposed exile to discuss these issues on a more pace/class oriented board where I will find people that share my views and where I can gain more insights and profits.

Good Luck.



Post Edited (03-19-05 12:09)

[TGJB]

Miff-- NO, I\'M NOT-- that\'s the point. The way you know that we got it right-- and that the others did not-- is by tracking those horses on the various sets of figures. We posted the sheets on the horses earlier this string, and as I pointed out, AA not only held to his earlier numbers, but his later ones, and Flamenco, the horse you questioned, ran the 4 again in his two only other starts. The rest ran WORSE that day than in their other races, so if you made the race slower it would look much worse. You could not ask for more confirmation.

As for Beyer, as I said on this string, get the DRF pps for the same horses, and you will see that that one race is out of line-- all the horses in the Hopeful ran much better in their other races. That\'s how you know-- by doing research.