TG Figures for 2007 Belmont

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

The only way to prove it is for Rags to take on the Colts again and I\'m about certain that will never happen unless Pletcher gets stupid.

Do you really think Rags ran the most challenging distance in her life out of her division with a slow pace in a slow time on a fast track and scored by two full points the best figure of her career vs those colts? Do you really believe that?

I thought Tgraph made a 3 point error with Bellamy Road in his Wood Memorial, but it was a logically influenced error. This time, they\'ve made a 4 point error which is the largest error in my years of following them and that error defies all logic.

Immediately after the race I thought a zero was likely. Since tearing it apart I\'m certain that the negative number is a large error.

spa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chuckles, you\'re truly demented..........

[basket777]

funny yes i do believe it.  even moreso after you write your prose.  oh well

[Silver Charm]

You guys with this 3 business are nuts if you think the filly regressed from the Oaks and the entire field X\'ed.

[marcus]

ctc2 - What did  you have  for breakfast  ? Maybe your confusing the 3 with Mr ED ...

[fkach]

Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You guys with this 3 business are nuts if you
> think the filly regressed from the Oaks and the
> entire field X\'ed.

I think some people believe the figures assigned might reflect the ability of the horses but not the actual time of the race (because of the pace).

What I find ironic is CTC makes a pretty good case that a single race around two turns, at a distance that none of these horses has ever run, in an era when pedigrees are more geared towards shorter distances, when the pace was very slow, cannot be projected with a high degree of confidence off of past figures.

He then proceeds to tell us the figure should be a 3 as if he has solved all the complexities.

It\'s pretty obvious that Curlin and RTR both ran very well. They were well clear of the rest of the horses, both exceptionally game, finished exceptionally fast etc...  

Do we really need to know the exact figure they earned in a 12F slow paced race to evaluate them later in the season under much different conditions?

The Beyer and TG figures look cool to me. ;-)

[Michael D.]

fkach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do we really need to know the exact figure they
> earned in a 12F slow paced race to evaluate them
> later in the season under much different
> conditions?
>
> The Beyer and TG figures look cool to me. ;-)


I have long seen problems with tying 12F races to much shorter ones, but I think fk is correct here. It was a slow pace and a sprint home at a distance they will never see again. This figure does not matter.

If you had the filly, you made money. That\'s what counts.

[TGJB]

CTC-- As I have made clear-- and as you have apparently failed to understand-- I based the figures on the figure histories of the horses, and as it happened IT FIT based on the final time of the race, relative to the one turn races.

Besides your analysis of the pedigrees of the horses, what \"logic\" did you base your \"3\" on? How much of a correction did you make for the one turn races for the wind?

[BitPlayer]

TGJB -

I assume the \"3\" is just Chuckles being Chuckles, but his and other posts do raise a question I am curious about.

Several posts in recent weeks have questioned figs earned at classic distances based, at least in part, on the premise that since a particular horse (or the horse population in general) is not bred to go long, their TG figs should decline, or at least not improve, as they stretch out to 10 furlongs or further.

To me, the fallacy in that argument is that TG is based on a relative, not an absolute, scale.  Since you are doing numbers based on the horses, what matters is how well a horse stretches out relative to its peers (who are also distance-challenged) not relative to some absolute standard (such as a long-standing par time).

For example, suppose that on one if its gimmick days, Calder were to run the \"Carson City Stakes\" for offspring of Carson City (is he still alive?) or some other brilliant sprint sire, with eligibility being conditioned on having a TG top of between 1 and 2 and never having raced  at a mile or more.  Suppose further that the race was run at 10 furlongs on the dirt and that it was the only dirt race on the card.  Presumably, in order to give most of the entrants figures that are consistent with their prior tops, you would give the winner a new top.  Chuckles would then complain that a son (or daughter) of Carson City was unlikely to have run a new top at 10 furlongs, but you would have been faithful to your methodology and TG users would understand how you got to the number.

What I am curious about is your reference to your Belmont figs being consistent with your \"speed chart.\"  You have in the past referred to regularly checking your figures at various tracks to make sure you keep one- and two-turn races in alignment.  I assume your efforts are reflected in your speed charts.  If the breed is becoming more distance-challenged, presumably you should have seen that reflected in the relationship between one- and two-turn races captured in your speed charts, particularly at the tracks with larger circumferences (Belmont being an extreme example; Saratoga being perhaps a better one).

All of this leads to two questions.  First, have you seen such a trend?  Second, given the small number of races run at two turns at Belmont, how reliable do you think the chart is in that case?

Thanks for your time.

P.S. Your spell-checker objects to \"TG\".

[TGJB]

I have not said that we try to keep a speed chart that shows the average relationship between one and two turn races (which is what a speed chart does) because the relationship changes constantly, at all tracks.

Your example about the Carson Citys is a good one. But what would usually happen is that one or more horses would be able to handle the distance (some CS do, the TGI is again an average), and most would not. You would get an extreme spread in the figures-- you wouldn\'t get the kind of thing you got with the Belmont figures, where they fell into line so tightly for so many horses-- and I would deal with the race accordingly, giving most bad numbers. And by the way, when a race collapses the way you indicate, it usually shows up in the fractions.

Those who are used to making figures using speed charts and pars, without wind, weight and ground, don\'t get what we do here. Those guys are almost invariably just looking at the winners, where those of us using the \"projection method\" are looking at all the figures for all the horses, after those figures have been fine tuned with the variables. (And by the way, I think the term projection method is responsible for a lot of confusion. It implies we are projecting our opinions of what the horse will run-- and while all figures are subjective to some degree, we don\'t, and our way is no more subjective than one that simply uses pars and averages. The subjective decision there-- an incorrect one-- is to use just the winners against pars, and then use averages. We use all the horses that ran in THAT race).

Finally, this-- ALL speed charts are based on a relative, not absolute scale. It goes to how they are arrived at to begin with-- by looking at the average time horses run at different distances, a relative question by definition, and one that might be answered differently now than 50 years ago, or 50 years from now. But the way a figure maker knows whether his figures are right TODAY is by how tight they come out, over lots of figures for lots of horses in lots of races. You can\'t make that work out unless the figures you are using to make your decisions are right. And if you try to add or subtract even a point or two from the Belmont figures you will see what I mean.

[Ill-bred]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> By the way, Beyer has the race as fast or faster
> than we do. Ragozin has not posted his yet, but
> after seeing what he did with the BG, Derby, and
> Preakness, he could come up with absolutely
> anything without it being a surprise.



I believe they gave RTR a 4 3/4, which seems kinda slow to me.

[miff]

Jerry,

What role does the variant adjusted raw time play in awarding TG figs. The adjusted Belmont was pegged at 2.29.1, painfully slow on the day and as an aside, historically when looking at track speed for other Belmonts.

Without giving up anything you deem to be proprietary, please explain the relevance of the role played by the variant adjusted time, in addition to or in concert with you looking at what all the horses run. Understood ground, wind are in there also.


What I believe is most questioned here is how do you get a fast fig in a very slow race? We know there was substantial ground for the winner and others.Can you crawl around the track 6 wide and still get a big fig? Don\'t you have to run somewhat fast also? Thanks.

Mike

[TGJB]

Miff--

1-- We don\'t adjust into time, we adjust into figures.

2-- The concept of an adjusted time as you use it is based on an average variant for the day. As I explained in Changing Track Speeds that concept does not hold water-- I mentioned this in my previous post as well. Whoever gave you that 2:29 is using an average variant and a speed chart, and possibly only looking at the winners and using pars. It might be worth asking them. CTC certainly is-- that\'s why he lists the final times and classes of the races.

3-- It also might be worth asking them if they adjusted the one turn races for wind.

I look at all the information I can get my hands on, which most certainly includes the time of the race and of other races on the day.

By the way, the two most significant adjustments I made on Belmont day were to the first race (6f) and the third (1 1/8th one turn). I noticed that Beyer made an even more dramatic adjustment to the third, but that could be because he doesn\'t use wind.

To paraphrase Dr. Mick Peterson (who has studied the properties of race tracks more than anyone but George Pratt),as I quote in Changing Track Speeds, the best way to judge the \"speed\" of a track is by seeing how fast horses run over it, in figure terms, compared to their previous figures. That means you have to go by the horses.

[fkach]

>By the way, the two most significant adjustments I made on Belmont day were to the first race (6f) and the third (1 1/8th one turn). I noticed that Beyer made an even more dramatic adjustment to the third, but that could be because he doesn\'t use wind. <

I was hoping those two races were going to come up, but I didn\'t want to distract from the Belmont conversation.  

It was pretty clear to me that those two races didn\'t fit in with the rest of the day. I know at least one other competent figure maker besides Beyer that also made adjustments to those races.

I wasn\'t at the track that day.

Was there anything you could pin down as an explanation for those two races needing seperate treatment?      

When a race really sticks out and an explanation is apparent, I can always put an asterisk in my notes about the race. It\'s all the variances that are too small to notice but large enough to influence my betting that I worry about because I don\'t know about them.

[TGJB]

I know of nothing specific, but when you are dealing with a windy day, how much water they added (especially if it varies, which Porcelli indicated it does) and when probably has something to do with it. Also, gusts can make a difference, and the 1 1/8th has a very long run with the wind-- which is being estimated by a human.

[miff]

Jerry,

1.\"We don\'t adjust into time, we adjust into figures\"



..not certain how you adjust into figures without first considering track speed and race time.




2.\"I look at all the information I can get my hands on, which most certainly includes the time of the race and of other races on the day\"


From the above, I guess you felt that the Belmont was not slow in total and I can\'t agree with that on any level by that day or historically.

Thanks for taking the time.

Mike