Take Charge Indy

[JR]

The pool 1 sheets has TCI\'s first race this year as a 1.5. The newest set now has that race as a 3. Is the 3 an error or did you change that race?

[JR]

Same race, same adjustment for El Padrino. I guess you changed that race. Yes?

[Holybull1]

BRIS and Beyer have that allowance race much faster it seems.  How does it change the pattern read on TCI and El Padrino, if at all?

[JR]

How would it have changed the analysis going into to Florida Derby?

[TGJB]

As I mentioned here in my Florida Derby analysis, I intended to review the GP allowance once a few had run back. After they did it was clear what the right figures were. It would not have changed my view of the Fla Derby.

Rick B.-- the questions about O\' Neill arise not because of what that horse did, but because several improved at the same time. He has a history of running very hot or very cold, and when that happens over a large group of horses it\'s suspicious, no matter who it is.

[Rick B.]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick B.-- the questions about O\' Neill arise not
> because of what that horse did, but because
> several improved at the same time. He has a
> history of running very hot or very cold, and when
> that happens over a large group of horses it\'s
> suspicious, no matter who it is.

The only problem I have with this is it would seem to give a pass to trainers whose horses get the same kind of jump-ups as our beloved \"supertrainers\", but fly under the radar because they have so few starters -- we\'d be hard pressed to spot a meaningful trend on these guys.

Pretty much a moot point, someone will reply: if racing can\'t get rid of the guys that are robbing Fort Knox, why bother going after the ones that are stealing an occasional candy bar. I get that.

I\'ll keep waiting for the \"invisible hand\", I guess.

[TGJB]

Rick-- the issue was raised in the context of handicapping, not enforcement. When there is one suspicious jumpup, the right approach is to look at the next few starters of that trainer, large stable or no, and see what they do. But the comments about O \"Neill or anyone else are not based on one horse.

And by the way, all this is the reason for the \"last 90 days\" stat.

[Rick B.]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick-- the issue was raised in the context of
> handicapping, not enforcement. When there is one
> suspicious jumpup, the right approach is to look
> at the next few starters of that trainer, large
> stable or no, and see what they do. But the
> comments about O \"Neill or anyone else are not
> based on one horse.

OK, got it.
 
> And by the way, all this is the reason for the
> \"last 90 days\" stat.

Not to be a jerk about it, but the two trainers being discussed have virtually the same TG Figure-Based percentages in the last 90 days. Seems ironic, at least.

[TGJB]

In general, the way I use \"last 90 days\" is to compare it to the guy\'s overall record, see if something has changed. Depending on when something started \"or ended\" it may or may not help, but it\'s the best we could do with something automated.

[Rick B.]

I have to be honest -- I\'ve never taken a hard look at that stat before today.

I will now. Thanks for the tip.

[BitPlayer]

TGJB -

Do you have any concerns about modifying the figures for a race run in the mud based on horses running back over a fast track?  The same kind of issue must come up when a circuit (e.g., Kentucky or California) shifts from synth to dirt or back.

[TGJB]

The short answer is no. I don\'t change them unless it\'s not only clear that the first one is wrong but that the second one is right.