BC Distaff

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Being moved by how she was named isn't exactly a comment on her racing talent.

The numbers don't mean what you think they do. Every time a trainer chooses to have their horse not be the pacesetter, they're choosing to take the wider trip. If that means a loss of ground that is a huge disadvantage, then they wouldnt choose it, would they? They know that ground loss isn't always important. It can be a disadvantage, or it can be an advantage. For Beholder, it was to her advantage. It was exactly where her trainer wanted her to be to be able to run her best.

You're forgetting that I said that Songbird was so good that she could have beaten the colts and was bemoaning the fact that she was not being entered against them in my Songbird thread. Something that you strongly disagreed with, if you recall. On this thread I was commenting on the absurd notion that she would win "easily".

To be fair, I believe Songbird ran the game race of her life and ran extremely fast pace figures according to both TimeformUS and my own pace analysis.
I give her credit for hanging in gamely despite that. I also agree with CJ's tweet that Beholder was the best considering ground loss.

One doesn't have to go wide to stalk. Beholder's connections were hoping that she could stalk Songbird in the 2 path, not 4 and 3 wide around both turns. Unfortunately in this case her wide post and the speed inside her put Beholder into this ground losing situation. Not blaming Steven's at all. He did a great job from a bad situation and he and the mare were good enough to overcome it.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That's one of those subtle trip issues.

If you are a literal ground loss handicapper, all you care about is the paths. But it seems like a lot of horses prefer running outside as long as they don't lose a lot of ground. I think you have to watch the races develop on a specific day to see if there are any advantages.

If what you mean by literal is that you know that wide trips cause ground loss in direct relationship to how wide a horse runs, then I'm guilty. The effect of losing ground for every path wide is a constant. The laws of physics do not change from day to day.

Where did you get the idea that all I "care about is the paths". There are other factors to consider like pace, etc. However, it is foolish to not also consider a clear truth like wide trips cost ground.

Yes maybe some horses prefer being on the outside, though this number is overrated, but one still has to take the ground loss into account in judging the performance.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

If what you mean by literal is that you know that wide trips cause ground loss in direct relationship to how wide a horse runs, then I'm guilty. The effect of losing ground for every path wide is a constant. The laws of physics do not change from day to day.

Where did you get the idea that all I "care about is the paths". There are other factors to consider like pace, etc. However, it is foolish to not also consider a clear truth like wide trips cost ground.

Yes maybe some horses prefer being on the outside, though this number is overrated, but one still has to take the ground loss into account in judging the performance.

I wasn't referring to you specifically. I was referring to people that adjust their speed figures with ground loss like many TG/Sheet players.

There's no question you can measure ground loss differences mathematically. The problem is that turns are banked, it's easier to overcome inertia running wider, some horses prefer being outside, and paths are not always uniform.

So I think it's a mistake to adjust speed figures for ground loss.

I think a better approach is to watch races develop and decide what happened on a day to day and case by case basis - including ground.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I wasn't referring to you specifically. I was referring to people that adjust their speed figures with ground loss like many TG/Sheet players.

There's no question you can measure ground loss differences mathematically. The problem is that turns are banked, it's easier to overcome inertia running wider, some horses prefer being outside, and paths are not always uniform.

So I think it's a mistake to adjust speed figures for ground loss.

I think a better approach is to watch races develop and decide what happened on a day to day and case by case basis - including ground.

Also horses get blocked inside, have to wait, or don't like dirt in their face. Sometimes it's good to be out in the clear even though you cover more ground.

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I need to watch the races again, but this was my impression watching the card.

The rail looked fine, but if I had my choice I'd rather be outside and a bit off the pace as long as I wasn't losing a ton of ground. It's possible the track became a little more tiring as the day went on, but impossible for me to know. Most people would call this track honest because anything that was going on was pretty subtle.

Jeff Seigel making a point of the track playing dull and outside today. Might have been getting there yesterday as well.

I find it unlikely that Beholder could give that much ground and win unless the 1 path was a bit tiring. She aint 4L better.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I wasn't referring to you specifically. I was referring to people that adjust their speed figures with ground loss like many TG/Sheet players.

There's no question you can measure ground loss differences mathematically. The problem is that turns are banked, it's easier to overcome inertia running wider, some horses prefer being outside, and paths are not always uniform.

So I think it's a mistake to adjust speed figures for ground loss.

I think a better approach is to watch races develop and decide what happened on a day to day and case by case basis - including ground.

It is a fact that any horse has to cover an extra length for each wider path, no matter what else happens in a race. That is a scientific universal that does not vary from day to day. That does not mean that one cannot consider other factors that contribute to a horse's trip. There may be other factors, like pace or a dead rail, that effect a horse's performance but you cannot be blind to the fact that ground loss is one of them.
It's like pace, a horse may overcome setting a hot pace but you have to give him credit for it.
No matter how many races you watch it doesn't change the effect of ground loss.

A good example is Beholder who ran a slower than usual speed figure in the Distaff because she lost 5 lengths on the turns. CJ has tweeted that Songbird earned a slightly higher speed figure due to the fast pace she set but that Beholder was best considering her ground loss.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Also horses get blocked inside, have to wait, or don't like dirt in their face. Sometimes it's good to be out in the clear even though you cover more ground.

Of course things can happen to horses on the inside. It doesn't change the fact that going wide losses ground. All factors must be considered.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

It is a fact that any horse has to cover an extra length for each wider path, no matter what else happens in a race. That is a scientific universal that does not vary from day to day. That does not mean that one cannot consider other factors that contribute to a horse's trip. There may be other factors, like pace or a dead rail, that effect a horse's performance but you cannot be blind to the fact that ground loss is one of them.
It's like pace, a horse may overcome setting a hot pace but you have to give him credit for it.
No matter how many races you watch it doesn't change the effect of ground loss.

A good example is Beholder who ran a slower than usual speed figure in the Distaff because she lost 5 lengths on the turns. CJ has tweeted that Songbird earned a slightly higher speed figure due to the fast pace she set but that Beholder was best considering her ground loss.

When you are running wider, the banking of the turn and lower inertia are to your advantage, which offsets that length. If you want, you can also try adjusting for that. Then you can add in an adjustment for how fast they were traveling while wide. Then you can add in whether that specific horse likes being inside or outside. Then you can add in for whether there was a path bias or not. By the end of it you'll have a bunch of approximations that are way more likely to be wrong than right.

The other choice is to watch how the races are developing in general on that day and how it developed in that given race.

After watching the races yesterday and watching that race specifically, IMO the difference between Beholder and Songbird was more than a nose but way less than a literal interpretation using ground loss.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Jeff Seigel making a point of the track playing dull and outside today. Might have been getting there yesterday as well.

I find it unlikely that Beholder could give that much ground and win unless the 1 path was a bit tiring. She aint 4L better.

Speed handicappers understand that the speed of a track can change during the day, but handicappers in general seem less open to the idea that a bias can change or develop during the day also. It's way easier to make the case about track speed changes than bias changes.

I planned on betting Stellar Wind at 3-1 or 7/2. I sensed the track was getting more tiring. So I used Stellar Wind despite being 5-2 and threw in Forever Unbridled also. It didn't help. But it's at least possible I am correct that the track was getting more tiring as the day went on yesterday.

[AltonKelsey]

Rail didn't bother Drefong , but that one might be a rocket.

Didn't know if he could do that twice in a row.

PS Who's hotter than Garcia?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Rail didn't bother Drefong , but that one might be a rocket.

Didn't know if he could do that twice in a row.

PS Who's hotter than Garcia?

I'm lucky I stayed out of that one.

I had Drefong as having an easy trip last time shaking loose when nobody else went with him. So usually, he would be a bet against for me. But he also fit my profile of a horse with more in the tank like Songbird. That insight kept me from betting AP Indian at a marginal 5-2. I wanted more because I was so afraid Drefong was going to jump up. He did.

That's the thing about betting against these "unicorn" horses. Sure, some of them don't jump up and some of them lose even when they jump their figure up (as Songbird did also). But a LOT of them win despite having reasons to be skeptical. .

How many people tossed Songbird? They were right that she lost, but if they tossed her from exactas, triples, and supers they lost everything by being so skeptical of her ability to do more against better . And if they wound up on the wrong horse (like I did) they were right that she might lose but they still lost. Even when they lose, you don't always cash. The trick is developing the profile for identifying which ones have the ability to give more so you don't go all out against them and understand the actual values. Figures alone do not do it.

[AltonKelsey]

I notice Vic Stauffer on TOP of the BC Betting Chall. Damn.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

I notice Vic Stauffer on TOP of the BC Betting Chall. Damn.

Apparently he is very very good.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Apparently he is very very good.

You better take a look at Stauffer. He's straight and strong.

[AltonKelsey]

I mentioned who's hotter than 'Garcia'

No knock on him, but I was conflating him with Guitierrez , who won a pair yesterday .