Enough Nonsense

[Michael D.]

TGJB,
i have no reason to question the hopeful #, but - are you suggesting that because AA ran similar #\'s in his next two starts, a pair of two turn races run on fast tracks, that you got the hopeful correct?

[TGJB]

Frank-- he also said that when a \"superior\" horse gets optimal conditions figure makers will be \"confused\", and likely to get the figures wrong. He also said that we got the Hopeful figure \"wrong\", and that we were \"wrong\" to break it out (on a day where the track was wet all day, and then it rained during racing, no less). His evidence of this was that other people, who may or may not believe that tracks change speeds during the day, did it differently-- not that there was any evidence to show they got it right.

The point of that excrutiating exercise yesterday was this-- this is a Thoro-Graph board. We make this about rigorous examination and science to the degree we can. This ain\'t a place where anybody can float an idea without serious evidence to back it up, ESPECIALLY when by the statement\'s very nature it means we are getting figures wrong regularly, and I personally ain\'t standing for somebody saying a figure for a GI at Saratoga was wrong, when all evidence is to the contrary. If someone questions a figure-- as Miff did with this one originally, and has with others-- we check it out. NOBODY is doing the amount of work, or the level of work, that we are to make sure we get it right. If you want to put a theory out there as nothing more than that, fine. But if you challenge me on the methodology or the data, bring evidence with you, and be ready to go. This is a serious place.

[TGJB]

Michael-- I\'m suggesting that AA\'s figures the rest of the year (and those were one turn at Belmont, I think, until BC) were one piece of evidence, along with lots of others. We posted the sheets very early on this string-- look at the horses, and see what happens if you add 3 to the race, as everyone else did.

[jmiller]

You keep saying noone else got it right, but I posted that the PaceFigures site did get it right.  The race fit right in with the others.    There are more ways to measure a race than with final time alone.  I don\'t think anyone doubts that you guys make the best final time figures available anywhere.  Isn\'t it possible that there could be more to measuring performance than final time?  Like I said earlier, you can\'t argue with the results the guy is getting.

[TGJB]

JMiller-- I have no idea what results your guy is getting, and as I said earlier, I\'ll stipulate that ALL the pace guys got the pace figure right. It\'s not the point. The point is that others got the FINAL figure different, and CH said they were right.

[Saddlecloth]

pace figures is no more, drf has sent them the cease letter a few sites have gotten before, suprise suprise after reading this discussion.  anyone, for a measly $100 you can buy their program and use the Bris data files.

TGJB,

>he also said that when a \"superior\" horse gets optimal conditions figure makers will be \"confused\", and likely to get the figures wrong.<

Incorrect.

I said that IMO when a very superior horse cuts a blazing pace it can impact the final time of several of the inferior horses in that race negatively if they raced too close to it. When this situation occurs and I see a wide discrepancy between your figure for the race and the Beyer/Ragozin/Logic/PaceFigure figure for same the race, I want to know why you are only one that thought that race was a lot faster. Often I conclude you are right. If you broke the race out though, I would like to know that because it is possible I might disagree with your conclusion that the track changed speeds. I never know until I analyze the race, watch the replay and look at my pace figures. Sometimes I come to the conclusion that pace was a factor.

I would then prefer to work with the slower figure everyone else assigned the race and make specific upward adjustments to individual horses instead of working with your faster figure. It doesn\'t matter whether you agree with me or not.

I need what I need and express why I need it for the benefit of anyone that is interested in pace.

The end result is often six to one half dozen to another, but most often I would be working with very different numbers than everyone. My performace figures end up looking completely different than the figures anyone else assigned to the horses.

I just need to know if a race was broken to get to the figures I want. That goes for Beyer, Ragozon, Logica, Bris and anyone else. If one of them totally disagrees with the conensus, I want to analyze why.  

>He also said that we got the Hopeful figure \"wrong\", and that we were \"wrong\" to break it out (on a day where the track was wet all day, and then it rained during racing, no less).<

I said that my theory of pace indicates that the pace of the Hopeful was fast enough to have impacted the final time for several horse. I don\'t care if you agree with me or not. I needed to know it you broke it out so I would work with the figures I wanted.

You did break it out, so I wanted to work with the slower figure that everyone else assigned to that race and make specific pace related adjustments to it. If I made my pace related adjustments to your faster figure, I would have screwed up \"my personal analysis\" of the performances of the horses.

>His evidence of this was that other people, who may or may not believe that tracks change speeds during the day, did it differently-- not that there was any evidence to show they got it right.<

The only evidence is that pace handicappers work with these numbers regularly and make adjustments to figures we feel explain many things that final time figures alone do not. It doesn\'t matter if we are right or wrong or you believe us. We need the information we need in the form we need it.

[OPM]

Well, partly.  CH, I\'ve also been using something similar to what you are talking about for the last 1 1/2 year with much success.  HOWEVER, Jerry is right when he says there are really no to qualtify this \"effort\" and he just gives you accurate # and you can adjust them as  you see.  Also, just becuase a horse dueled inside means he should have earned a better figure.  There could have been a rail bias that carried him along( I think this was present at FG on LA Derby day).  So you have to make a qualitative adjustment not a quantitative adjustment.  Also, if there was no rail bias, then the fig. is actually much better than give n but this horse may bounce next time, so as in all races you have to play the odds.

In regards to comments such as horse won easily, was all out, tank empty- in my experience this is all NONSENSE.  I would just depend on the pattern of the horses and not these old time comments.  I know a handicappper in SCAL who publishes these things and they are invariably wrong!!

Just adding gas to the fire!!!

J. Miller,

Thank God someone understands what I am saying and is willing to at least contemplate the thinking.

We don\'t all have to agree on how or why some races come up slower than expected.

As to why pace guys need what we need here is an example:

If Pacefigures.com had concluded that the Hopeful track had slowed down and assigned it a faster figure like TG, then on top of that made the same adjustments to that final time figures for pace that he always makes in order to produce \"performance figures\", he would have turned AA (and some of the others) into some of the greatest 2YO sprinters ever. None of \"us\" believed that.

If he had concluded that the track had slowed down, he would also have had to conclude that the fractions might even be faster than they looked when adjusted for the slower track speed. None of \"us\" believed that either.

Those two conclusions would have produced  \"performance figures\" (as opposed to final time figures) that would have been wildly inconsistent with what we believe in general. So the obvious conclusion to us was that the track didn\'t change speed much, if at all. The fast pace was a factor in the slow final time.

It doesn\'t matter who is right because we produced the \"performace\" figures that squared perfectly. TG produced the final time figures he believed in and the stars lined up for both camps.

When you understand what pace figure guys are doing as opposed what people not familar with pace say or think we are doing, you understand why we are satisfied that the stars lined up.

It is unfair to say Pacefigures (or anyone else) got it wrong when you don\'t even understand the methodology used to adjust the final time figures for pace and how they verify their own results.

There are plenty of excellent books on pace if people are interested in the subject.
It is very complex and not everyone agrees on everthing. My thinking just happens to be amazingly similar to PaceFigures. It is not my job to write a book here to explain or prove why I believe this.    

Thank you for being open to the thinking.



Post Edited (03-20-05 20:07)

OPM,

I agree with you. It is certainly hard to quantify these impacts. It\'s my view that I would rather have the appoximately right answer for the exactly right reason than the approximately right answer for the wrong reason. It doesn\'t matter which camp you believe is in which category as long as you have the data consistent with your views to work with.

[TGJB]

CH-- it\'s pretty clear you won\'t (and can\'t) address the points I made over and over, but it would be nice if you at least read what I wrote. I don\'t have to know how the pace figures were made-- I said twice that I will stipulate that they are right. But that has nothing to do with whether the final figures for the race we all made are right, and yes, I read what you wrote about the internal logic they (and you) used. The evidence that the logic is wrong is a) the overwhelming evidence, on ALL our final figures, that mine were right and the others were wrong (and I have described this extensively on this string, so I don\'t have to do it again), and b) that the horses who ran CLOSE to the hot pace are the ones who ran well, and the others did not.

What you have is a theory. A theory is not evidence. Again, if you come here saying we got something wrong, or our methods are wrong, come armed. You will be challenged every step of the way.

The other post really is nonsense-- not because it\'s  untrue, but because it\'s completely misleading in the context of this discussion. You didn\'t JUST say you wanted to know whether we broke those races out-- you said it was wrong to do so, and that we got \"confused\", and made incorrect figures. You have yet to provide one iota of evidence of this.

Did you find out whether Beyer uses pars at any step of the process?

TGJB,

>Again, if you come here saying we got something wrong, or our methods are wrong, come armed. You will be challenged every step of the way.<

I won\'t challege your figures or methdology publicly anymore. I have no vested interest in this. I don\'t have time for circular conversations that are related to business and not related to improving the handicapping process. I have nothing for sale.

Just tell me honestly whether you broke a controversial figure with a fast pace out or not when I ask. At that point I will have all the information I need to use your figures. Whether I think you figure is right or wrong privately doesn\'t matter. I\'m still going to handle it the way \"I\" think is right.



Post Edited (03-20-05 15:51)

[TGJB]

CH-- nice edit.

Just so we all understand this-- checking the accuracy of your figures by seeing what figures the horses run in the future is at the heart of what we do. It\'s in fact the way we MAKE figures-- that\'s what the projection method is, looking at past figures to determine today\'s.

The part of the conversation in contention is neither about business or handicapping-- it\'s about figure making. And I have no problem telling you when I break out races, although it\'s often a question of degree, since most tracks change somewhat over the course of the day.

TGJB,

I understand how and why you check your figures the way you do.

My method of checking my opinions is different because I am incorporating pace figures into all the raw speed figures in and out. I am not just looking at the speed figures out the way you are. That would not make sense. I don\'t have a database available with all this information for every horse. I had it for Afleet Alex and it was posted.

The races of interest will generally only be the ones where there is a huge discrepancy between various figure makers. I don\'t care much about a fifth here or there.



Post Edited (03-20-05 20:00)

Saddlecloth,

>pace figures is no more, drf has sent them the cease letter a few sites have gotten before, suprise suprise after reading this discussion.<

This was a terrible development. He supplied a high quality product for multiple tracks that IMO incorporated pace into final time analysis properly. He also documented the validity of the concepts with flat bet profits for an extended period of time.

I hope something can be worked out because his work was very valuable to me. He saved me a significant amount of personal effort for races outside of NY.

The only other set of pace figures I trust are available for NY races only packaged with trip information.



Post Edited (03-20-05 20:39)