ROTW??

[fkach]

>I read the thread and if you weed out the postings criticizing the ROTW and focus on the questioning of the California figures, I do think it points out a problem. I certainly can\'t agree with FKACH and say this has been happening for decades (jerry screwing up the california figs by having them too slow)

Jimbo,


This is the conversation I was trying to avoid, but you leave me no choice.

I said no such thing about the TG figures.

I said that horses have been shipping to the NY circuit from CA and winning a lot of these major events for decades (and they have), but the reverse is not true to anywhere near the same extent. I was implying that the Californians tend to run better than they look on paper from a variety of perspectives (speed, class etc...). TG wasn\'t even around at the time I was already playing CA shippers.

I think there are many possiblies for why. I listed some of them. But different things may have been relevant at different times. So it\'s not always clear what the reason was/is in any given case.

1. Some trainers are clearly skilled at being able to point to a specific race and have chosen to ship here when, and only if, they thought their horse was ready for a major effort.  It pays to pay attention to who has been successful.

2. Before synthetics, the CA sprinters were trained for extreme speed and often were faster than the locals to the lead. Perhaps that\'s why they often did so well here.

3. The current synthetic figures may be compressed much like turf figures because of the slower paces. So the top level figures earned on that surface may not reflect the ability of the horses when compared to figures earned on dirt. That would be true of everyone\'s figures. In fact, I have already seen stats that suggest that and make my adjustments where appropriate based on the research someone else provided to me.

4. At any given time, the circuits may not be in perfect sync from either a quality or speed figure perspective. By quality, I mean at any given time the horses out there may be better than the horses here even though the class designations are the same and the speed figures are similar (and vice versa).  IMHO, as a handicapper it pays to pay to attention to quality issues. It also pays for a speed figure maker to constantly cross check circuits.

5. Perhaps weather issues, earthquake issues, jet lag issues etc.... about which I know little are having an impact in one direction, but not the other.

The point I was making is that this phenonemenon is nothing new. It has been going on since the late 70s when I first started playing horses. It\'s not much different than when the Florida shippers from some barns tend to do very well here in the spring by dominating the local winter stock. That has also been going on for decades.

Once you know that, it doesn\'t really matter if we all agree on the reasons or not. It simply becomes silly to throw out horses from CA because they appear a length or two slow on any set of speed figures. That goes double if the trainer is Bob Baffert and has a record of doing very well on the ship here.  

My intention wasn\'t to criticize the ROTW because it properly identified a very good horse to key on. It was to suggest that the winner was very usable in the exacta (as I suggested before the race) and elaborated on afterwards.

[BitPlayer]

Jimbo –

I don\'t disagree with your basic point, but I\'m not sure it applies in this case.  Tough Tiz\'s Sis had gone from synthetic to dirt and back several times, and (at least for me) it was difficult to look at her sheet and conclude that she would post a substantially better TG fig on dirt (or sealed slop) than she had on synthetic.

In hindsight, I\'m more inclined to think (as Jacimo posted) that, after almost a year of added maturity, she finally surpassed her 3yo top (admittedly in a big way).  Getting Prado didn\'t hurt.

[fkach]

I think it\'s almost a 100% certainty that she ran a new top and that development was at least part of it.  

The off track may also have been a part of it.

Baffert may have known she was ready for a better performance and that\'s why he brought here here to begin with.

Her recent races on synth may have masked some development that was already taking place relative to her dirt figures of the past because of the phenomenon Jimbo described.

I think these conversations never really get anywhere because everyone tries to fit the result into their own model of thinking about racing/handicapping.

The bottom line is that this was a horse that had already demonstrated a fondness for dirt and synth and there were a whole bunch of reasons to think she might run faster yesterday than she had in the past. So if you loved the value on the ROTW selection, I can\'t help but think it was mistake to not use her in the exactas (sorry Jerry, but I make plenty of my own mistakes)

[jimbo66]

Bit,

Sudden development like that after 6 races as a 4 year old where she couldn\'t break through her 3 year old top?  I don\'t think so, but you are certainly welcome to buy that.  One could argue the wet track, but I didn\'t see the wet track moving her up at Monmouth in the Breeders cUp last year.

How about, her \"development\" may have happened during the 4 year old season, not all at once yesterday, but any development was masked by the compacted synthetic numbers she has been running all year long.  I lean to that explanation,

Jim

[TGJB]

On horses shipping west and winning major events-- Even The Score, Student Council, Super Frolic (yeah, I know he didn\'t win, but with me giving the riding instructions he would have won at least one GI, maybe two, possibly even three). Also running to their figures or better most if not all the other horses I have sent to California-- most recently Accopela Choir and Holy Humor (hasn\'t won, but paired then improved his top). Both bought for a song, by the way.

For the record, Colonel John paired his Swaps figure in the Travers.

Jimbo\'s comments are interesting, and I said earlier this year that I didn\'t know what to make of what\'s going on. But I also have to point out that Baffert is something of a special case-- he (and his horses) hate synthetics, especially poly. Check out his Del Mar stats. He may be buying a certain kind of horse, shoeing them a certain way, or who knows what-- but they run a lot better on dirt.

Lava Man didn\'t do quite as well outside California.

[BitPlayer]

Jim -

The hidden development theory may well be right.

One issue is that it suggests the synthetic figures are not just compacted (and thus not comparable with dirt figures), but also internally flawed.  TTS ran her 3yo top on synthetic and then failed to replicate it in five attempts on synthetic this year.

I suppose it\'s possible that, as horses get bigger and stronger, they become less suited to synthetic surfaces.

As for the slop, Baffert said that TTS didn\'t like the mud flying in her face at Monmouth.  He instructed Prado to \"keep her face clean\" yesterday.  With little speed in the field, it wasn\'t that hard to do.

[fkach]

TGJB,

I think there are a lot of different issues going on here.

Some of the horses you mentioned are recent ships with a clear preference or proven record of handling synthetic tracks. The very long term record of which I speak (mostly dirt) is incredibly lopsided in the other direction and has included many trainers, the period long before the start of synthetic racing, and even periods before you had this company. Something explains that.  

Lava Man has long been an exception in that he hasn\'t run well outside of CA virtually ever. Perhaps it was drug issue (bute or other). I think a lot of it had to do with his connections choosing impossible spots, races where he had just gotten vanned off the track for exhaustion like before before coming to Belmont, and him getting very difficult trips (like in the BC). He was never nearly as good as the best East Coast horses to begin with (other than perhaps for a race or two at his peak). I think his figures outside CA demonstrate clearly that something else was going on even if people don\'t agree on the details.

Pair or not on your figures, IMO it\'s obvious that Colonel John ran the best race of his life in the Travers. He had a bad start, got bumped, bulled his way between horses and beat far and away the best field he ever beat. I could never agree that was paired performance even if it was a paired figure. We would have to agree to disagree.

I am close to 100% certain the synthetic figures are flatter at the top (like turf). Someone whose opinion I respect has already analyzed the data throughout the country. To me, the only debate is why (probably pace) and whether a reasonable adjustment can be made for versatile horses (I am using one created by someone else that seems consistent with the data).

[TGJB]

As has always been the case as long as you have been posting here, you are going to have your discussion in response to everything whether or not the facts support it or it\'s relevant.

Again, every horse I have sent to California has run at least to its numbers there. In the cases of SF and ETS, their races came on dirt. (There are plenty of issues about shipping into California, by the way. Especially as it gets colder here, and especially for dirt horses, for whatever reason).

You can also add Clearly Foxy to the list of ones I have sent out that ran well- she ran third in a GI (on grass) despite trouble, and ran a new top. Seems to me Clement\'s horses have run okay out there, too. And that was the specific point I was responding to-- it\'s not a one way street,as you claimed.

If you want to make the argument that Colonel John\'s race is better even though his figure is the same, do it somewhere else. That\'s how we measure things here.

[fkach]

>As has always been the case as long as you have been posting here, you are going to have your discussion in response to everything whether or not the facts support it or it\'s relevant. <

IMO it\'s \"all\" relevant if you are trying to pick winners, cash bets, and generate a positive ROI. Baffert\'s (and other trainers) long term record and ROI with shippers into NY is available.  

As I said, I think there are multiple issues here, but if you want to limit the discussion to just the recent synthetic vs. dirt figures and not talk about the long term historical record, I think Jimbo and others would appreciate at least that.

As far as I can tell, the list of high profile synth to dirt horses (I have not even looked at turf) that moved forward when shipped out of CA dwarfs the list that paired or improved going out there even though there may be some individual examples that suggest otherwise. To be clear, this is not limited to TG figures in any way. It\'s true of all of them.

You can always find exceptions. Some may be due to randomness. Some may have been recent trainer changes. Some may have caught a fast synthetic pace (critical since that\'s a primary suspect in all this). Besides, the flattened figure issue is really only relevant at the top class levels, not with second string stakes horses and less. In the middle, the figures seem to correspond very well. That\'s the flattening.

We spent much of the spring discussing Colonel John\'s Derby prospects because several 3YOs (and a couple of other high profile older CA horses too) left CA synthetic for various parts of the country and their figures exploded forward on dirt. In fact, many of us used Colonel John in the Derby (and again in the Travers) at least partly on the expectation he could run faster than he had shown in CA. Same yesterday! So this isn\'t anything new and certainly relevant to yesterday\'s race and the winner\'s prospects.

That I added other considerations was an attempt to make clear that IMO her victory yesterday was probably only partly explained by the synth vs. dirt figure issue. Versatile horse\'s don\'t move forward that much because of the surface switch and this horse already had a dirt record under Baffert. It\'s not like she moved forward a point or so yesterday. It looks like a lot more than that. Something else was a factor too.

In any event, I think a study of some sort might be useful in the future as the data keeps coming in.

[TGJB]

That would be an example of you doing it again.

The original comment I responded to was a comparison of horses traveling in both directions. I gave you lots of examples of ones that went west and ran just fine.

Far more stake horses travel east than west, because there are so many more opportunities in the east that horses have less need to go west, and so few in California that they travel here. When it\'s warm in the east, they run just fine shipping west.

The question of synthetics to dirt is a separate one. As I said.

[fkach]

TGJB,

>That would be an example of you doing it again.<

You did mention the synthetic to dirt issue, perhaps I responded to the wrong message.

I\'m not sure why you have an issue with me suggesting that some trainers (like Baffert and others) have been profitable on the ship to NY for the last 5 years (partly pre synth) and even before that etc.... Bringing up those other issues was an effort to point out to others that IMO there is good reason to believe that the synth to dirt issue (which was being discussed and which we agree is seperate) was not the determining factor yesterday. I would think you be pleased with that point of view. LOL

I said nothing at all about your CA figures other than make clear that Jimbo\'s interpretation of what I saying was wrong (if that\'s what you also thought).

As far as I am concerned we can drop this. I am going to keep interpreting the figures the same way I have been and wish everyone else good luck doing whatever they are doing.

[jimbo66]

Fkach,

You are dilluting the point, at least the one I started with my posting on the thread.  I started with a very specific point about dirt to synthetic relationship.  It wasn\'t a trainers that ship well like Baffert, or your view of the effect of pace on races,or about the TG figures in California.  

And it is frustrating, because you post a lot, and your themes are often similar.  If somebody wants to take a look at a different angle or point, it would be nice if you would not \"poison\" the thread.  

Dirt to synthetic and vica versa is a challenge for most of us handicappers.  If you have figured that out, congratulations.  However, I doubt it.  Considering the last gambling opinion you gave in this forum was the \"interpretation\" that Big Brown\'s show price in the preakness was a \"great bet\".

[JR]

Tough Tiz’s Sis has been hard hitting, and has showed she can handle both dirt and artificial surfaces. But she’s been racing against a very weak group in California, with the exception of Zenyatta—and her two efforts against that filly weren’t nearly as good as they looked. In both starts Tough Tiz’s Sis got weight from Zenyatta and had a rail trip—her figures are not that strong, and she’s not a strong contender here.

Translation: Clear cut evidence suggesting other possibilities; very usable.

Thanks for the clarification.

[fkach]

Jimbo,

I underststand your point, but if the discussion is dirt vs. synthetic figures and the race that prompted it was the Ruffian, I can\'t see how pointing out the other potential factors in the winner\'s performance cannot be incredibly significant to the discussion. If you can\'t see that, IMO you will never be able isolate the dirt vs. synth factor. It\'s obvious that the relationship between synth and dirt figures wasn\'t the primary factor in her huge effort on dirt because the difference looks massive and there\'s no evidence of that being typical. I think that was an important point to make.

I was happy with my first post on the subject until you misunderstood it and quoted me. Then I felt compelled to clarify that I WASN\'T talking about CA figures.

A discussion with Jerry that goes beyond a hand full of paired figures would be very helpful because he has a database that can be analyzed and is making the figures.  

For the record, I don\'t have it all \"solved\" but I\'ll refrain from explaining the complexities of the issue because no one here apparently wants to hear, discuss, or try to understand and cope with them.

[jimbo66]

Fkach,

It isn\'t \"obvious\" to me that the difference in performance was more than dirt and synthetic.  That may be \"obvious\" to you, but not to me.  You mention the wet track, pace (again!!!!) and Baffert shipping east.

Well, the horse was never on the board in 3 previous wet track tries, so forget that.  it is \"obvious\" that wasn\'t it.

Even if I concede that pace matters in a race, the Ruffian\'s result was certainly not pace-aided.  The fractions were legit and leaning to fast and TTS pushed those fractions, so this is \"obvious\" that it isn\'t this.

So that leaves me with the choice of \"Baffert ships east often and wins/moves horses up\" or that the horse was developing this year but this development was masked by the synthetic figures, and that although she certainly ran a new top, maybe it really wasn\'t the 6 point new top that it will likely look like.

More importantly, at least to those of us that actually gamble, if this horse was faster than a \"3\" going into the race, let\'s say maybe a couple points faster, she goes from \"unusable at the price\" with a top of \"3\", to a \"strong contender with the right trip\", with a top of \"1\".  Those of us that actually GAMBLE with our opinions realize how critical this is.  Look at how JB played the race.  He keyed a 13-1 shot, and used her with 4 horses.  The 13-1 shot ran second, but he got nothing for his handicapping, because the Baffert was too slow to use, with a top of \"3\" and a pattern showing a stagnant 4 year old line, never having broken through her 3 year old top.  Somebody posted that she was \"due\" to break through her 3 year old top and was thus \"usable\".  They were lucky.  Betting on a horse to break through a top that she had previously tried 7 times this year to do, all unsuccessful, and taking 7-2 on it, is a very very very bad bet, over the long haul.

This \"compacting\" of the synthetic figures has a large effect on how a horse looks.  Even if TTS was just 1 or 1.5 points faster, her whole line looks different.  Instead of \"stagnant\", she would have had a solid line, with no backward move, and just small development, with potential to move forward again, and thus a solid contender.

This a topic that GAMBLERS actually have to address.