Is 3w the place to be in the Derby?

[BitPlayer]

Here are my calculations of historical Derby performance (not including this year\'s race) based on turn 1 path:

1w (91 horses): 3% top, 21% pair, 26% off, 49% X
2w (62): 10%, 15%, 32%, 44%
3w (82): 11%, 30%, 18%, 40%
4w and wider (72): 13%, 13%, 17%, 58%

[T Severini]

Of somewhat greater significance to me, is whether 3 wide was the place to be on May 2, 2015 by the 11th race.

[miff]

Somewhat illustrates my point that ground loss is overweight in sheets methodology.

Being 3 wide would only be the place to be if the inside paths became dead by the 11th race which is doubtful.The dirt race prior to the derby featured Private Zone battle along the inside before pulling away.The surface was also slowing down by then as affirmed by the Dame Dorothy race which went only slightly slower, notwithstanding DD is not in the same area code as PZ figure wise.

[Furious Pete]

\"Lies, damned lies, and statistics\".

It could be that paths is overweighted in the figures. It could also be that the speed on the rail hasn\'t fared too well in the derby, that \"20\" horses on the outside is a stressor, and that those jockeys confident that they had a lot of horse prefered to steer out wide to get out of trouble and have clean running room. It\'s a good way to begin a discussion, though!

[miff]

Pete,

Agree but you also have to realize that while it is true that speed horses race on inside there are always some stalkers/closers that race inside too.



Mike

[TGJB]

The obvious question would be why if ground is overweighted why 4w doesn\'t do better than 3w.

[miff]

More obvious is why 2,3,4 wide produce more tops than 1 wide

[TGJB]

There\'s a lot more logic to that-- there\'s more trouble in there, especially a big field. Some of those 1w\'s started from post one, like Lookin At Lucky.

But if there\'s logic as to why, if ground is weighted too much, 3w should produce better figures than 4w, I would like to hear it.

[miff]

That gets into the silly zone. Is it reasonable to think that 6,7,8 wide should produce more tops 2,3,4 wide?

A point we are not addressing here is also critical. A horse travelling the first turn 3 wide in 13-14 seconds gets the same adjustment as a horse travelling 3 wide in 11-12 seconds.As you know, there is a profound difference in where those horses would probably finish, all else equal.

[Furious Pete]

One I could think of, all though I\'m reaching here, is that 4wide on the 1st turn is a horrible spot either way, that most jockeys probably will feel a little desperate if finding themselves in, perhaps making them do some stupid moves, OR it could indicate that those horses already had been in some kind of trouble forcing them to go very wide OR that horses in the 4th path on the first turn probably also are coming from a horrible draw (pp 18-20) which were forcing them to try to use a lot of horse early in hope of getting themselves a better position (a gamble), that might have an impact on the final figure. From the top of my head. It is a small sample.

[Furious Pete]

I think Miff\'s point is a valid one, and I have been wrestling with that problem myself for a long time, have you ever done some studies where you\'ve been trying to \"weigh down\" the effects of paths to the figures from turns were there have been obviously a slow pace (it really should almost only apply to the 1st turn)? I think those races may be the most notorious producers of what I\'ve seen Miff been calling \"ground-loaded\" figures or something like that, and it would be really interesting to me if someone ever did a study like that using the TG-figures. Because if that was the case, if Miff is proven right, then the next horrible question that remains to be answered is just how big an effect a \"slow pace path\" really should be given. Obviously there must be some (they\'re still running further). Using the figs and the other horses to see what makes most sense seems to be the way to go to find out about just that. (and maybe you did already!)

[TGJB]

I don\'t \"know\" that, and neither do you. If you have data to back it up I would love to see it. And even if it were true, the same thing would apply to horses in the 2 path, etc. It wouldn\'t just be for horses that were wider.

If you were right, the wider the path the more tops there would be. Because it would mean they were not actually running better, I was just giving them better figures. We\'re talking about figures, not finish position.

[Furious Pete]

Not if them being wide is caused by trouble earlier in the race (which would impact the figure), or poor tactical decisions by desperate jockeys, or because of sub-optimal energy distribution because of the \"hopeless draw\" and a gamble of gunning forward that did not pay off. All those things will impact the final figure as well as the final position.

But you\'re absolutely right, we don\'t know this (all though you should have a better idea about this than I have, and I absolutely respect that). I just thought that if this might be an issue regarding the validity of (just some of) your figures, it could be worthy of further investigation.

[TGJB]

First of all, my reply was to Miff. Second, all those things will wash out if the sample size is large enough-- except logically horses on the inside will have more trouble.

[Furious Pete]

That I agree upon. And I also agree that paths is of huge impact, and I would much, much rather have them in there as they are than not. A study about these effects with a larger sample would be of great interest to me.