Preakness Odds

[mlnolan00]

She might not be able to go faster, but I think her rate of deceleration is just slower than that of other horses.  She can just go along and click off 12\'s like a machine.  She\'s flat just that good.

She will win, pay $2.80 and then she\'ll get grief because she skips the Belmont.

[miff]

Wrong again, the one that stops the clock first wins,every time


Mike

[smalltimer]

Unless they get DQ\'d.

[mjellish]

Was just trying to help explain the figures to you because it seemed like you had some questions.

Not worth debating.

[Leamas57]

Okay, thanks. I will have to review this.

[Beginner]

Mjellish,

Not at all if you referring to my post. It is unlikely that a horse can run as fast AGAINST THE CLOCK picking up 11 pounds, all things equal. If all things are equal, with 11 more pounds, and he gets neg -2 again, that means he ran 2/5\'s slower against the clock.


Mike,

This is very confusing to me.   Here\'s what it says in the Intro section:

\"5 pounds in weight = 1 point at all distances. The figures are adjusted for weight carried in previous races. If 2 horses run a TG figure of 10 today, a horse in at 115 will beat a horse in at 120 by 1 point, or 1 length at 5f.\"  

I interpret that to mean that if a horse runs a -2 then runs a -2 with 11 more pounds (all things being equal), the second -2 is a stronger effort....do I have that wrong?  Thanks for any input.

[mjellish]

No, the efforts are equal.  A -2 is a -2.

But say you have two horses coming off negative 2\'s.  Now they race each other.  Horse A is in at 115, Horse B is in at 120. Horse A can run a negative 1 and finish even with Horse B even if it runs a negative 2.  The fact that Horse B carried more weight and finished even with horse A means that that horse ran a stronger race, so they earn a higher figure.

Same thing would apply to ground loss.  Lets say the same two horses at the above weights run against each other.  Horse A gets a 1w 1w trip, carries less weight and beats Horse B by a length.  But horse B carried more weight and got a 4w, 5w trip.  So in this case Horse B will get the best figure, but Horse A wins the race.

The figures are calculated and they are what they are.  But when we look at figures we are trying to figure out how the horses are going to run today, not what they did in their last race.  So when two horses come back to race against each other at a later day, but this time at different weights, you may want to factor that into your handicapping on some level.

As this relates to the Preakness, the filly is getting weight from the rest of the field.  Which means she has more room to bounce.  She already has the best fig with room to spare, but she could run even slower and still win.

We are trying pick winners, not pick the horse that will run the best figure.  Having a horse run the best figure but lose is not much consolation when you are tearing up your mutual tickets.

[miff]

Beginner,

The question of the TG formula for calculating weight into their figs is as stated in their intro.

The example cited by Mjellish regarding who ran \"better\" between two horses that both get negative -2\'s carrying 115 vs 120 is a matter of interpretation.The figures are the same, but the lower weighted horse wins every time in the example below.

Assume the horse with 115 goes wire to wire on the rail and the horse with 120 follows one length behind on the rail, all the way, and finishes one length behind. They both get neg-2 and the horse with 115 wins every time in this exact scenario.The raw time ends up like this:

Horse with 115 runs a raw time of 1.10 equals TG fig -2
Horse with 120 runs a raw time of 1.10.1 equals TG fig -2

Hope this helps explain that particular issue.


Mike

[Beginner]

Thanks for the info - makes perfect sense.  And absolutely agree - I\'m not looking for the horse that can run -2, I\'m looking for the winner!

[Beginner]

Yes,
Thank you.  I see the difference between what you are saying and what MJ is saying.  Appreciate it.

[TGAB]

Miff\'s example IMPLICITLY assumes the distance is 5 furlongs. Since both horses ran on the rail, no ground loss, horse B\'s length beaten and 5 pounds more weight carried cancel each out--remember 5 pounds equal 1 point and 1 length equals 1 point at 5 furlongs.

[miff]

Alan,

For info:

1 point at 5f equals 1 length

What is the value(distance wise) of 1 TG point at 6F,7F,8F. What do you use?:

1 1/4 lenghts at 6f

1 1/2lengths at 7f

1 3/4 lengths at 8f

Thanks
Mike

[TGAB]

Miff--1 TG point is equivalent to about 1 length at 5 furlongs, and about 2 lengths at 10 furlongs. It\'s a simple linear relationship. It\'s just easier to use and conceptualize whole numbers--1 or 2 lengths equivalent 1 point at the various appropriate distances.

[David G Patent]

The point on Arazi, which you chose not to understand, was that he ran a pretty slow number in the BC but he \'looked\' a lot faster than that because of the dramatic move he made.  He was one of the slower BC 2 y.o. champs and had no shot in the Derby because he was slow and had stopped developing.

There are always excuses, as you aptly demonstrate, but the bottom line is that the figs are the figs are the figs and if you understand how to interpret them and use sound historical/statistical analytic methods, you will make money.  If you decide to bet horses because they look good winning \"easily\" despite what the figures say then . . . . best of luck to you.

[Leamas57]

But this leads me to believe then that there is some reference weight. So her -4 is in the context of what?--her next race when it becomes -5?

If weight is always a factor in the number, then is there ever an number without a context of weights for a race? If so, there has to be a reference point.

Or does the number change with every new race and weight assignment?