Batavia 7th 10/11

[traynor]

Anyone have an opinion? It looks like it may be an interesting race.

[traynor]

Like I said, an interesting race. Almost makes one feel sorry for the "handicappers" who dumped their money on Fireyourguns--and then watched it finish out of the money. Some people never learn.

One might find an advantage in comparing the pattern of the 7th at Batavia with the pattern of Friday's 5th race at FRD I mentioned earlier.

[badcompany]

Never was a fan of races with assigned posts. It's as though the outside horses are being penalized for being better.

They usually make for unpredictable races as the outside horses often get parked for long stretches.

[traynor]

Never was a fan of races with assigned posts. It's as though the outside horses are being penalized for being better.

They usually make for unpredictable races as the outside horses often get parked for long stretches.

How does that apply to the race at Batavia?

[badcompany]

How does that apply to the race at Batavia?

The post positions were assigned and clearly had an effect on the outcome of the race as the two favorites were pretty much prevented from leaving. On a 1/2 mile speed favoring track that's two strikes against you.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/C353FA1D-6A52-4132-911E-E3C33DC68565_zpsx79ydj8j.png (http://s95.photobucket.com/user/thinlizzy21/media/C353FA1D-6A52-4132-911E-E3C33DC68565_zpsx79ydj8j.png.html)

[traynor]

The post positions were assigned and clearly had an effect on the outcome of the race as the two favorites were pretty much prevented from leaving. On a 1/2 mile speed favoring track that's two strikes against you.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/C353FA1D-6A52-4132-911E-E3C33DC68565_zpsx79ydj8j.png (http://s95.photobucket.com/user/thinlizzy21/media/C353FA1D-6A52-4132-911E-E3C33DC68565_zpsx79ydj8j.png.html)

I think anyone who seriously analyzed the race using conventional handicapping processes would have concluded that there was no detriment of either position or pace for the two favorites. That was the whole point. To conclude (or "explain") after the fact that "early speed prevented them from winning" doesn't really explain anything--both What The Sheik and Fireyourguns had ample capacity to overcome the field rather easily. That is why they went off as the favorites.

The misconception that "early speed always dominates because it forces a fast early pace," is not really an explanation. The two favorites were in no way prevented from doing anything--both had sufficient speed to overcome any rabbit start from the other entries. Both tend to dominate the race in the later stages--regardless of what the other entries do or do not do early. Early speed as a dominant factor in such races is highly overrated--other than providing an after-the-fact justification for something happening that was not predicted by the pre-race analysis.

[traynor]

I think one of the least useful things for a handicapper to do is to look at race results and categorize them as having been the result of one thing or another, with little or no validation of that perspective pre-race. Simply stated, despite the opinions of some to the contrary, attempting to apply early speed theories BEFORE the race is far less predictive than they seem to believe. That is what is lost in most "research" in racing--the results are studied in isolation from the information available before the race went off.

In the case of the race above, I don't think many would have concluded BEFORE the race that both What The Sheik and Fireyourguns could be tossed from the win position because of "early speed" or a "fast early pace" by one or more of the other entries. Attempts to apply such theories--and bet on them--is a fast track to the poorhouse.

[badcompany]

You're right. The board suggested a better performance from at least one of the two.

So, what happened?

[traynor]

You're right. The board suggested a better performance from at least one of the two.

So, what happened?

A long, soggy story, way too complex to answer briefly. Meaning, there were specific indicators that the results of that race would be quite different than expected, but those indicators are not easy to describe simply. The easy way would be to say there were "confounding variables" involved--things outside of the factors and attributes normally considered that are created by specific combinations of those and other factors.

I would like to say I had the winner. The truth is, I didn't bet the race. The app I use coughed up a warning about the race, which is why I asked if anyone had an opinion on the possible outcome. The pattern was nearly identical to the race I mentioned previously at FRD, but there was no projection of a winner--only the caveat that the "normal" criteria used would probably not accurately predict the outcome.

It is not a perfect science, by any means. I am still working on it. Fortunately, I have enough faith in the output of the app I use that I resisted the temptation to load up on Fireyourguns to win, with What The Sheik to take place. It looked like a slam dunk, which is one of the things that made it an interesting race. I don't know if you watched the race, but Western Alumni set a lifetime record.