Upon Further Review.......

[jimbo66]

Upon further review of the literary work compiled last week by TGAB as the ROTW, it seems my comments mentioning \"awful grammar and spelling\" were a bit of hyperbole.

Having been spoiled by TGAB\'s normal high standard in the ROTW, including the use of many vocabulary words that I have never heard of before, I feel that last week\'s literary rendition fell short of the usual mark.  That said, the handul of spelling mistakes and omitted words doesn\'t fall to the level of \"awful\".

I apologize.

TGAB, thanks for pointing out the callousness of my remarks....

After all, even with all the spelling mistakes and omitted words, the document was still MUCH more accurate than the California figures...

[miff]

Spelling,smeshelling. How bout race shapes having Awesome Gem second \"fastest\" to the quarter, beyond absurd.


Mike

[jimbo66]

I don\'t know about \"smeshelling\", based on recent races, I could see Awesome Gem coming out near the front on race shapes, even though I am sure most of us didn\'t expect him near the lead.  (he ran in some faster paced races)

Jim

[miff]

Jim,

You or anyone on this board arguing splits/internals, race shapes etc with me is like some high school football coach debating defensive strategy with Bill Belichick.


Mike

[TGAB]

Thank you, Jim. And I will do a better job proofreading.

[TGJB]

You have a very selective memory, Mike. You raised this exact issue here BEFORE a race at Mth a year or two ago, and the RS were exactly right, and you were exactly wrong. But hey, Belicheck isn\'t perfect either.

[miff]

\"You have a very selective memory, Mike. You raised this exact issue here BEFORE a race at Mth a year or two ago, and the RS were exactly right, and you were exactly wrong. But hey, Belicheck isn\'t perfect either\".

JB,

Don\'t remember the race but do recall that abberation.Any formula which considers ground loss and a few pounds of weight at the distance of 2f is flawed on 99  different racing levels. That is not to say the fastest horse early, as per race shapes,is not,app 70% of the time.Examined over a 3 month period for NY races.


Mike

[Rich Curtis]

\"That is not to say the fastest horse early, as per race shapes,is not,app 70% of the time.\"

  What, exactly, are you saying here, Miff?

[miff]

it\'s WRONG 30% of the time!

[Rich Curtis]

\"it\'s WRONG 30% of the time!\"

Race Shapes are based on an average of the last three adjusted quarters. You will get a lot better by digging deeper into the information provided. They do not take into consideration all the things a handicapper will take into consideration when he is trying to figure out who will take the early lead. More important, making pace figures is like making final-time figures for races in which riders are stiffing their horses. And yet, at a GLANCE, they give you the \"right\" answer 70% of the time? Sounds as if they were invented by the guy who created Belichick.

[miff]

\"Race Shapes are based on an average of the last three adjusted quarters\"

Rich,

You don\'t get it.A few pounds of weight and ground loss are irrelevant at 2f. Yeah about the three race average but no about the relevancy of parts of the formula.Forgetting all the extraneous BS(gate trouble, intention et al)The speed of the speed is pretty clear a fair amount of time and in such cases, race shapes is correct.

You being a pace guy, check CJ\'s pace figs against TG Race Shapes for a few months and post the honest findings.Incidentally,don\'t tell me that race shapes was not intended to be a quasi form of pace figures.

Mike

[Rich Curtis]

\"Incidentally,don\'t tell me that race shapes was not intended to be a quasi form of pace figures.\"

  Of course they were, to the 1/4. My point in making an analogy between pace figures and final-time figures for fixed races is that pace figures put you at the mercy of jockeys. In other words, this is tricky business.

  \"You being a pace guy, check CJ\'s pace figs against TG Race Shapes for a few months and post the honest findings.\"

   I like CJ\'s work a great deal, and I have a ton of respect for his knowledge of the subject. However, he is not Thoro-Graph. He has carved out an entirely different niche for himself. And he has stated, in writing, that he has more or less given up on trying to predict the early pace because he finds it too difficult--largely because of jockey strategy. You are extremely confused, Miff. If CJ\'s numbers are correctly predicting the early leader, then he is doing something wrong, because his pace figures are designed to do something else entirely: reflect the degree to which the pace at which a horse ran allowed him to run his best final time. CJ is super at this. But he is playing a different game.

\"A few pounds of weight and ground loss are irrelevant at 2f.\"

 Is weight relevant from a standing start? Have you thought this through? As for geometry, I\'m not quite as casual as you when it comes to posting it right out of existence.

[miff]

Rich,

You got way off point.This was about Race Shapes accuracy in kinda predicting how the horses would line up based on their early speed, again extraneous BS aside.
There is no scenario on this earth where Awesome Gem can outrun the horses that laid one, two on Sat.However the formula arrived at that is WRONG!!!


1.Again,standing, sitting or in between a few pounds of weight will NOT alter the finish of a 2f race between two dead equal runners. From 10 jockeys or more who rode thousands of races,the effect of weight is relevant at the onset of exhaustion,NOT before. A 2f all out sprint does not qualify for a few pounds of weight being relevant. We won\'t go into the fact that all horses do NOT possess exact weight carrying capabilities and the effect of a weight spot is a best guess scenario. No debate less weight is always preferable but may not ALWAYS be relevant(one length) depending on weight carrying ability of the animals involved.

2.I stated to leave extraneous BS out of the equation. We are looking to identify the speed of the speed.Sharp data out there measures that by looking at only a few things for an eighth. Track speed,wind direction/velocity,run up, all else out of the formula, very excellent when extraneous BS not in play.

3.Re geometry, most one turn races at major tracks are straightaways for 2f and the angling over from outside to inside is very marginal re extra distance travelled,minuscule ground loss irrelevant.

Two turn races different depending on how fast the turns come up AND the adjusted speed/path which the turn is being run. Pssst, don\'t tell anyone that travelling around the first turn at breakneck speed vs crawling around it is NOT the same,the extra distance, of course, is constant, but the difference is night and day to the whole number but \"scored\" the same re ground loss.Thats the time when you pickle the geometry theory that all ground loss is equal.

Have a nice day Rich!

Mike

[Rich Curtis]

\"You got way off point.\"

Actually, what happened is that I picked up your CJ point, and then you decided you didn\'t want to discuss it further. But that\'s OK. In the interests of wrapping this up, I will confine myself to the points you want to discuss:

\"Again,standing, sitting or in between a few pounds of weight will NOT alter the finish of a 2f race between two dead equal runners. From 10 jockeys or more who rode thousands of races,the effect of weight is relevant at the onset of exhaustion,NOT before.\"

   These 10 nameless jockeys who probably don\'t even know how much they themselves weigh but have somehow managed to make themselves experts on the subtle effects of a few pounds on adjusted fractions? They are trumped by my 11. Nobody is going to beat me when it comes to enlisting nameless jockeys in a cause so noble.

\"Re geometry, most one turn races at major tracks are straightaways for 2f and the angling over from outside to inside is very marginal re extra distance travelled,minuscule ground loss irrelevant.\"

  Please tell me what this has to do with your point. Do you think Thoro-Graph adjusts Race Shapes too much for the groundloss on straightaways?

  \"We are looking to identify the speed of the speed.Sharp data out there measures that by looking at only a few things for an eighth\"

  Nameless data? What\'s next? Nameless horses?

   \"Pssst, don\'t tell anyone that travelling around the first turn at breakneck speed vs crawling around it is NOT the same,the extra distance, of course, is constant, but the difference is night and day to the whole number but \"scored\" the same re ground loss\"

  True, to my mind, for how first-turn groundloss combines with pace to affect the final figure, but utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

 \"There is no scenario on this earth where Awesome Gem can outrun the horses that laid one, two on Sat.\"

  Funny how these opinions tend to be expressed more forcefully when one no longer has to fear being contradicted by the running of the race.

[miff]

Funny how these opinions tend to be expressed more forcefully when one no longer has to fear being contradicted by the running of the race.

Rich,

You were not party to the discussion BEFORE the race re Awesome Gem on race shapes, shared by 5 posters on this board. I don\'t look at it but those who do brought up the subject.


Am certain TG is well aware of no real measurable ground loss on straightaways however a fair amount of Awesome Gem type\'s show up in sprints too on Race Shapes.


Mike