FG 3/19: MMunzJrH

[miff]

JB said,

\"Joe B-- no, ground loss is ground loss, it\'s straight math whichever track you are at. Miff will disagree.\"
 
 
JB,

I never disagreed with the premise that at ALL tracks, a horse travelling in a wider path is covering more ground than the runners inside of him. The math/ logic used in this part your calculation is unquestioned, speaking for myself.

I am definitely aware that on some occasions(Belmont especially) the wider path is \"tighter/firmer\" returning much better energy to the the runners in the wider paths as oppposed to runners inside on the deeper/dead paths.Just about everyday during Belmont I get feedback on paths, directly from the agents/connections of The Mig, Aaaron Gryder,Angel Cordero and others.I also look very closely at this and feel I have a good handle on judging it.I know that is NOT science but it\'s strong.These jocks are out there warming up/riding searching for the best paths.I have record of all track profiles in NY for several years with notes on wind direction, speed, trips, run up changes etc.

My issue has always been that on those \"outside days\", TG methodology/formula still REWARDS the wide runner who is benefitting from being wide while really NOT being disadvantaged by ground loss,only by the math.I am aware that on those occasions that TG uses an X to denote the dead rail.

I have seen dead rails and pronounced outside biases reap havoc on the performance of runners, good and bad.Thats what I mean when I say wider figs are not necessarily faster notwithstanding the correct math is being us.More importantly, how does TG tie back to figs when there was a pronounced/obvious bias which had a big impact on all runners on the card. A bias aided figure is not a \"true\" figure, IMO.I have tossed many favorites with superior BIAS AIDED figs with very good success.


What consideration/allowance is made by TG when a runner is obviously affected by a bias? If none, why not? given that you are trying to make superior figs and no other product is even CLOSE on this important factor.

Probaby a good discussion for a dead period, if there are any.

[TGJB]

Miff-- you know I do agree that there are dead rails, so the question will come down to what constitutes \"obviously affected by bias\". When there is a dead rail, it means by it\'s very nature that we are giving those horses bad figures, not giving them their usual figures and giving the horses outside extra credit. The classic example of this was the last BC held at Belmont-- I wrote a whole explanation, which can still be found in the archives here, about how the rail was dead and the dry track changed speed, and how Ragozin got the day completely wrong (as Freidman said, they had an enormous number of horses who ran outside running tops). At the time I made a prediction about something like 25 horses who ran inside or in the first 3 races that day going forward on Ragozin next time out-- I think 23 did.

Dr. Pratt of MIT agrees with you about different paths being different speeds (see my DRF EXPO presentation on the homepage). Problem from a figure making perspective is, between horses moving from path to path and conditions changing and the track not necessarily being the same all the way around, there aren\'t enough data points to use to make serious decisions. On days when it\'s dramatic, we can see the dead rails. On others, there may very well be some slight differences, but there is no reasonable way to quantify them.