lies, darned lies, and statistics

[dilanesp]

I just bought the print edition of the Racing Form, and I'm shocked the number of writers who are throwing out the "statistic" that Exaggerator cannot win because no 2nd place Derby finisher has won the Derby since Prairie Bayou in 1993, and only three have done so since 1960.

This is just an absurd example of the tendency of handicappers to create "statistics" based on tiny Triple Crown sample sizes that are clearly due to variance.

First of all, there's nothing special about running second in the Derby. Some horses who did so were excellent horses (Easy Goer, Summer Squall). Other horses who did so were nobodies (Commanding Curve, Golden Soul). Evaluating the statistic, rather than the individual horses, is ridiculous. Obviously, Easy Goer and Summer Squall had a much higher chance of winning the Preakness than Commanding Curve or Golden Soul did.

Second, 56 Preaknesses (starting in 1960) sounds like a lot, but really is a tiny sample sizes. When Sheldon Kovitz and Andrew Beyer first developed their speed figures, they used the data set from a year's worth of races in New York to develop the par times-- in those days that would have been about 180 race days with nine race cards, or 1620 races! If they had simply looked at 56 races, do you think their calculations would have been accurate? This is a problem with ALL Triple Crown stats, and is a reason why we keep seeing things that NEVER used to happen (favorites winning the Derby, horses with bad dosage winning the Derby, horses without good 2 year old form winning the Derby, 2 year old champions winning the Derby, Breeders' Cup Juvenile winners winning the Derby, horses without sufficient prep races at 3 winning the Derby) happen with regularity.

Third, let's look at some of the horses who lost the Preakness after finishing 2nd in the Derby. Easy Goer, in 1989, lost by a nose in a head-bob. Yet that loss counts equally in the stat to Firing Line running up the track two years ago. Similarly, Captain Bodget lost a three horse photo in 1997 to Silver Charm and Free House.

A number of the second place finishers finished second to the Derby winner again in the Preakness, which actually DOES NOT necesssarily suggest they were bad bets, because if something had happened to the Derby winner, they would have won. These include Bodemeister losing to I'll Have Another, Menifee losing to Charismatic, Victory Gallop losing to Real Quiet, Easy Goer, of course, losing to Sunday Silence, Bet Twice losing to Alysheba, Alydar losing to Affirmed, Sham losing to Secretariat, and Arts and Letters losing to Majestic Prince.

So it sounds bad. Like it never happens. The second place finisher in the Derby never wins the Preakness. But this is perfectly clear that this is just a product of RANDOM STATISTICAL VARIANCE.

The lesson: stop overemphasizing small-sample stats on big races like the Triple Crown and Breeders' Cup in your handicapping. They really are just noise most of the time. Handicap based on fundamentals, not that something can "never" happen.

[Tom]

+1 :ThmbUp:

[clocker7]

I wholeheartedly agree that the smaller sample size creates a larger margin of error. But rather than using paragraphs of anecdotal data, what is it?

[dilanesp]

I wholeheartedly agree that the smaller sample size creates a larger margin of error. But rather than using paragraphs of anecdotal data, what is it?

It's actually impossible to know the "real" margin of error, although it is possible to calculate a p value of some sort.

The reason it's impossible to know the "real" margin of error is because the Preakness isn't even a consistent trial. It's different every year. The field size is different, the track bias is different, the track condition is different, the strength of the 3 year old crop is different, the pace is different, the medication rules have changed, etc. The Preakness of 1960, when these people started their calculation, is not really even the same race as the Preakness of 2015.

Calculations that treat the Preakness won by Spectacular Bid over 4 other horses as equivalent to the Preakness won by Rachel Alexandra over 12 other horses are grouping apples and oranges.

So I don't think a significance value based on all 56 runnings is really going to be very helpful here. At the very least, I'd want to throw out some Preaknesses that were clearly unrepresentative before running any sort of statistical analysis.

[RXB]

I just bought the print edition of the Racing Form, and I'm shocked the number of writers who are throwing out the "statistic" that Exaggerator cannot win

Please show us all of these writers who have said that "Exaggerator cannot win." I mean, if it's a shocking number there must be a whole whack of them in the DRF who have stated that it is flatly impossible for Exaggerator to win.

[dilanesp]

Please show us all of these writers who have said that "Exaggerator cannot win." I mean, if it's a shocking number there must be a whole whack of them in the DRF who have stated that it is flatly impossible for Exaggerator to win.

Brad Free:

"Exaggerator faces a historical challenge. Over the last 20 years, Derby runners-up are 11-0-3-3 in the Preakness." [He picks him 3rd, behind Stradivari]

Marty McGee:

"Exagerrator will be trying to become just the third Derby runner-up in the last 55 years to win the Preakness... It's an extraordinary span that encompasses 40 starters... including 10 beaten favorites and an overall ROI of a mere $0.33 for every $2 bet." [followed by a response to Keith Desormeaux to a question about whether his colt could win given that]

Plus a feature box, "How Kentucky Derby Runners-Up Have Fared in the Preakness", listing all of them since 1960.

I mean, given this is a completely bogus, phony, non-sensical statistical angle with no validity, that's way over the top, isn't it?

[RXB]

Again, where did anybody, never mind "a shocking number" of DRF writers say that "Exaggerator cannot win" as you claimed? They didn't, of course. You start a post about "lies" and "damned lies" with your very own willful distortion of facts.

Agree or disagree as you will with their reasoning but don't distort their words. These guys have professional reputations to upkeep.

[Tom]

I wouldn't call most of theses article professional by any means.
Filler would be a better word.

I don't think he was calling anyone a liar, but using an age old phrase that correctly describe the alleged statistic being used to fill column space.

[dilanesp]

Again, where did anybody, never mind "a shocking number" of DRF writers say that "Exaggerator cannot win" as you claimed? They didn't, of course. You start a post about "lies" and "damned lies" with your very own willful distortion of facts.

Agree or disagree as you will with their reasoning but don't distort their words. These guys have professional reputations to upkeep.

You apparently have never heard the phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics". It's an expression.

Where did I call any drf writer a liar?

As for their professional reputations, I'd worry more about what they published and less about the title of my post.

[AndyC]

You apparently have never heard the phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics". It's an expression.

Where did I call any drf writer a liar?

As for their professional reputations, I'd worry more about what they published and less about the title of my post.

I think it is an interesting fact but not a significant fact for handicapping. I don't know that any of the writers claimed it to be the latter.

[whodoyoulike]

I just bought the print edition of the Racing Form, and I'm shocked the number of writers who are throwing out the "statistic" that Exaggerator cannot win because no 2nd place Derby finisher has won the Derby since Prairie Bayou in 1993, and only three have done so since 1960.

This is just an absurd example of the tendency of handicappers to create "statistics" based on tiny Triple Crown sample sizes that are clearly due to variance.

First of all, there's nothing special about running second in the Derby. ...

Exactly! I always wonder when people write or say that there is a statistical significance when there really isn't. And, I'm not referring to the sample size.

[RXB]

Where did I call any drf writer a liar?


I didn't say that you called a DRF writer a liar. I just asked you a specific question that you haven't answered: why did you claim that many DRF writers said that "Exaggerator cannot win" when apparently none did any such thing? They merely quoted historical statistics that the Derby runner-up has not landed in the Preakness winners' circle very often over the decades. I'd be very surprised if Exaggerator is not the consensus second choice among them.

You stated in an earlier thread that you're backing Exaggerator in part because of his big win on a sloppy surface in the Santa Anita Derby which you indicated is proof that he moves up on a sloppy track. Isn't one the smallest and therefore least reliable sample size possible? And wasn't that at a different track with very different competition-- specifically, no Nyquist? And yet you seemed to try to downplay Nyquist's four wins in four races over Exaggerator-- with Exaggerator never finishing within a length of Nyquist. So, I'm confused as to where you truly stand regarding data, statistics, sample sizes, what constitutes valid information vs non-valid information, etc.

[dilanesp]

I didn't say that you called a DRF writer a liar. I just asked you a specific question that you haven't answered: why did you claim that many DRF writers said that "Exaggerator cannot win" when apparently none did any such thing? They merely quoted historical statistics that the Derby runner-up has not landed in the Preakness winners' circle very often over the decades. I'd be very surprised if Exaggerator is not the consensus second choice among them.

You stated in an earlier thread that you're backing Exaggerator in part because of his big win on a sloppy surface in the Santa Anita Derby which you indicated is proof that he moves up on a sloppy track. Isn't one the smallest and therefore least reliable sample size possible? And wasn't that at a different track with very different competition-- specifically, no Nyquist? And yet you seemed to try to downplay Nyquist's four wins in four races over Exaggerator-- with Exaggerator never finishing within a length of Nyquist. So, I'm confused as to where you truly stand regarding data, statistics, sample sizes, what constitutes valid information vs non-valid information, etc.

RXB, you are trying to manufacture a controversy. Turn down your outrage meter a bit. This is the Internet. People say things you disagree with.

If you think I'm wrong about Exaggerator in the Preakness, feel free to bet what you think will be the likely outcome. I sincerely wish you luck.

As for the rest, note that several regulars here agreed with my point about the DRF's statistic and what it says about Triple Crown statistics. Which suggests that rather than me being wrong, you grossly misread my post (which you did). :)

[garyscpa]

I never use the Kovitz's to bet the triple crown races.

[burnsy]

That goofy, quirky so called "stat" is the least of his worries. There's the pace, not giving up ground, and a horse named Nyquist, that's done whipped him 4 times. Stat be damned, winning is the most important one, and now Nyquist will most likely sit a garden trip. Good luck closing on that.

Will use a little but if Nyquist loses, I think it will be a dark horse. I don't know if this horse can.

[sbcaris]

To all: Looking at the data presented in the Daily Racing Form I discovered an interesting fact about these Derby second place finishers in the Preakness.

There were 18 second place Derby finishers who raced in the Preakness that went off at odds of 3-1 or less in the Preakness. These second place Derby horses were certainly well regarded by the public and failed to win the Preakness.

Thats 18 highly regarded Preakness runners who could not win the roses after their Derby second place finish.

Perhaps this statistic that was written up by Marty McGee on page 11 of the DRF Saturday edition does have some clout after all.

Three winners in 41 years is terrible when one considers the odds that the 38 losers went off at. 3 of 41 equals 7.3% winners. One would expect much better results than that. Horses even going to post at odds of 5-1 have a much higher win rate than 7.3%

[dilanesp]

To all: Looking at the data presented in the Daily Racing Form I discovered an interesting fact about these Derby second place finishers in the Preakness.

There were 18 second place Derby finishers who raced in the Preakness that went off at odds of 3-1 or less in the Preakness. These second place Derby horses were certainly well regarded by the public and failed to win the Preakness.

Thats 18 highly regarded Preakness runners who could not win the roses after their Derby second place finish.

Perhaps this statistic that was written up by Marty McGee on page 11 of the DRF Saturday edition does have some clout after all.

Three winners in 41 years is terrible when one considers the odds that the 38 losers went off at. 3 of 41 equals 7.3% winners. One would expect much better results than that. Horses even going to post at odds of 5-1 have a much higher win rate than 7.3%

Way to ignore everything about sample size and the invalid selection of the sample in the OP. :)

[f2tornado]

I enjoy these stats but there are so many you could disqualify every horse. Only one horse has won Preakness with a dosage index higher than Nyquist but I sure as heck won't ignore the chalk here.

[SecretAgentMan]

I enjoy these stats but there are so many you could disqualify every horse. Only one horse has won Preakness with a dosage index higher than Nyquist but I sure as heck won't ignore the chalk here.




Breeding has changed past several years, & dosage is worthless now a days.

[RXB]

When I first compiled those stats prior to the 2012 Preakness, I showed individual stats for the Ky Derby 2nd & 3rd finishers and also combined their stats onto a different row since there had been some obvious short-term variance toward finishing 2nd in the Preakness for the Derby 2nd finisher and toward winning the Preakness for the 3rd finisher.

So here is the very same table in updated form, showing the Starts/Wins-Places-Shows from 1962-2015:

Derby winners: 51/22-10-6 (43% wins, 75% ITM, 18% flat-bet profit)
2nd in Derby: 38/2-12-9
3rd in Derby: 38/8-5-8
2nd & 3rd combined: 76/10-17-17 (13% wins, 58% ITM, 38% flat-bet loss)

The Derby winner has won five of the six Preakness photo finishes (neck or less) in that time. Let's hypothetically suppose that they'd been incredibly unlucky and lost all six of those photos instead of winning five. (Long run, since the Derby winners are typically the superior horse, I'd expect them to win closer to four of every six):

Derby winners: 51/17-15-6 (33% wins, 75% ITM, 11% flat-bet loss)
2nd & 3rd in Derby: 76/15-12-17 (20% wins, 58% ITM, 16% flat-bet loss)

Even under those unusually unfortunate hypothetical circumstances, as opposed to what actually did happen, the Derby winners would still would have more wins (and then also more seconds, in that case), from 51 starts than the Derby 2nd & 3rd finishers in 76 starts. They would still have outperformed the track takeout with only an 11% flat-bet loss on win wagers. And they still would have slightly outperformed the Derby 2nd & 3rd finishers on a flat-bet win basis. (All of those photos involved the 2nd or 3rd finisher from the Derby so that group benefits with a win in all five hypothetical turnarounds.)

[depalma113]

Sham losing to Secretariat, and Arts and Letters losing to Majestic Prince.

So it sounds bad. Like it never happens. The second place finisher in the Derby never wins the Preakness. But this is perfectly clear that this is just a product of RANDOM STATISTICAL VARIANCE.

It could be herd animals developing a pecking order and the alpha asserting it's dominance.

[fiznow]

Don't care much about these statistics.
There is only one truth about horse horse racing, no horse is unbeatable and every horse has a chance. ;)

[CincyHorseplayer]

I just bought the print edition of the Racing Form, and I'm shocked the number of writers who are throwing out the "statistic" that Exaggerator cannot win because no 2nd place Derby finisher has won the Derby since Prairie Bayou in 1993, and only three have done so since 1960.

This is just an absurd example of the tendency of handicappers to create "statistics" based on tiny Triple Crown sample sizes that are clearly due to variance.

First of all, there's nothing special about running second in the Derby. Some horses who did so were excellent horses (Easy Goer, Summer Squall). Other horses who did so were nobodies (Commanding Curve, Golden Soul). Evaluating the statistic, rather than the individual horses, is ridiculous. Obviously, Easy Goer and Summer Squall had a much higher chance of winning the Preakness than Commanding Curve or Golden Soul did.

Second, 56 Preaknesses (starting in 1960) sounds like a lot, but really is a tiny sample sizes. When Sheldon Kovitz and Andrew Beyer first developed their speed figures, they used the data set from a year's worth of races in New York to develop the par times-- in those days that would have been about 180 race days with nine race cards, or 1620 races! If they had simply looked at 56 races, do you think their calculations would have been accurate? This is a problem with ALL Triple Crown stats, and is a reason why we keep seeing things that NEVER used to happen (favorites winning the Derby, horses with bad dosage winning the Derby, horses without good 2 year old form winning the Derby, 2 year old champions winning the Derby, Breeders' Cup Juvenile winners winning the Derby, horses without sufficient prep races at 3 winning the Derby) happen with regularity.

Third, let's look at some of the horses who lost the Preakness after finishing 2nd in the Derby. Easy Goer, in 1989, lost by a nose in a head-bob. Yet that loss counts equally in the stat to Firing Line running up the track two years ago. Similarly, Captain Bodget lost a three horse photo in 1997 to Silver Charm and Free House.

A number of the second place finishers finished second to the Derby winner again in the Preakness, which actually DOES NOT necesssarily suggest they were bad bets, because if something had happened to the Derby winner, they would have won. These include Bodemeister losing to I'll Have Another, Menifee losing to Charismatic, Victory Gallop losing to Real Quiet, Easy Goer, of course, losing to Sunday Silence, Bet Twice losing to Alysheba, Alydar losing to Affirmed, Sham losing to Secretariat, and Arts and Letters losing to Majestic Prince.

So it sounds bad. Like it never happens. The second place finisher in the Derby never wins the Preakness. But this is perfectly clear that this is just a product of RANDOM STATISTICAL VARIANCE.

The lesson: stop overemphasizing small-sample stats on big races like the Triple Crown and Breeders' Cup in your handicapping. They really are just noise most of the time. Handicap based on fundamentals, not that something can "never" happen.

Good call brother.

[098poi]

Good call brother.

:ThmbUp:

[thespaah]

I just bought the print edition of the Racing Form, and I'm shocked the number of writers who are throwing out the "statistic" that Exaggerator cannot win because no 2nd place Derby finisher has won the Derby since Prairie Bayou in 1993, and only three have done so since 1960.

This is just an absurd example of the tendency of handicappers to create "statistics" based on tiny Triple Crown sample sizes that are clearly due to variance.

First of all, there's nothing special about running second in the Derby. Some horses who did so were excellent horses (Easy Goer, Summer Squall). Other horses who did so were nobodies (Commanding Curve, Golden Soul). Evaluating the statistic, rather than the individual horses, is ridiculous. Obviously, Easy Goer and Summer Squall had a much higher chance of winning the Preakness than Commanding Curve or Golden Soul did.

Second, 56 Preaknesses (starting in 1960) sounds like a lot, but really is a tiny sample sizes. When Sheldon Kovitz and Andrew Beyer first developed their speed figures, they used the data set from a year's worth of races in New York to develop the par times-- in those days that would have been about 180 race days with nine race cards, or 1620 races! If they had simply looked at 56 races, do you think their calculations would have been accurate? This is a problem with ALL Triple Crown stats, and is a reason why we keep seeing things that NEVER used to happen (favorites winning the Derby, horses with bad dosage winning the Derby, horses without good 2 year old form winning the Derby, 2 year old champions winning the Derby, Breeders' Cup Juvenile winners winning the Derby, horses without sufficient prep races at 3 winning the Derby) happen with regularity.

Third, let's look at some of the horses who lost the Preakness after finishing 2nd in the Derby. Easy Goer, in 1989, lost by a nose in a head-bob. Yet that loss counts equally in the stat to Firing Line running up the track two years ago. Similarly, Captain Bodget lost a three horse photo in 1997 to Silver Charm and Free House.

A number of the second place finishers finished second to the Derby winner again in the Preakness, which actually DOES NOT necesssarily suggest they were bad bets, because if something had happened to the Derby winner, they would have won. These include Bodemeister losing to I'll Have Another, Menifee losing to Charismatic, Victory Gallop losing to Real Quiet, Easy Goer, of course, losing to Sunday Silence, Bet Twice losing to Alysheba, Alydar losing to Affirmed, Sham losing to Secretariat, and Arts and Letters losing to Majestic Prince.

So it sounds bad. Like it never happens. The second place finisher in the Derby never wins the Preakness. But this is perfectly clear that this is just a product of RANDOM STATISTICAL VARIANCE.

The lesson: stop overemphasizing small-sample stats on big races like the Triple Crown and Breeders' Cup in your handicapping. They really are just noise most of the time. Handicap based on fundamentals, not that something can "never" happen.
Jeez..Those are stats sports bettors use. In fact, they are not stats. They are trends. Horses don't do trends.
I guess if someone is being told to write a column and they don't have any solid ideas, they turn to minutiae.... In other words. CRAP.

[thespaah]

Again, where did anybody, never mind "a shocking number" of DRF writers say that "Exaggerator cannot win" as you claimed? They didn't, of course. You start a post about "lies" and "damned lies" with your very own willful distortion of facts.

Agree or disagree as you will with their reasoning but don't distort their words. These guys have professional reputations to upkeep.
Well, the OP batted 1.000 in finding those who wrote this nonsense.

[thespaah]

You apparently have never heard the phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics". It's an expression.

Where did I call any drf writer a liar?

As for their professional reputations, I'd worry more about what they published and less about the title of my post.
Don't worry about it. I caught the gist of your thread. East stuff for the NON knee jerk reaction crowd

[RXB]

Well, the OP batted 1.000 in finding those who wrote this nonsense.

Dilanesp posted his thoughts about Exaggerator and his intentions to bet the horse BEFOREHAND so good for him. I don't recall you doing any such thing. Would you be piping now in if Exaggerator had lost? I'm guessing "no."

Add this one to that running total, notice how little it changes the overall trend, and note that since I first posted those stats prior to the 2012 edition, three of the five Ky Derby winners repeated their wins in the Preakness.

[thespaah]

Dilanesp posted his thoughts about Exaggerator and his intentions to bet the horse BEFOREHAND so good for him. I don't recall you doing any such thing. Would you be piping now in if Exaggerator had lost? I'm guessing "no."

Add this one to that running total, notice how little it changes the overall trend, and note that since I first posted those stats prior to the 2012 edition, three of the five Ky Derby winners repeated their wins in the Preakness.
nope. I had no dog in this fight.
I am looking at this strictly from the standpoint of the media coverage.
What I sometimes get aggravated about is when some member of the media who gets paid rather well, has to resort to obscure stats or if in electronic media, talk a lot but don't say much.
Perhaps we could have all stepped back and looked at the musings as a conversation piece rather than information one should use as handicapping tool.
In any event, I can be pretty cold to media people that either bore me or leaving me scratching my head as if to say.."what the hell did he or she just say"....or "gee thanks for that information, Capt Obvious"

[CincyHorseplayer]

Dilanesp posted his thoughts about Exaggerator and his intentions to bet the horse BEFOREHAND so good for him. I don't recall you doing any such thing. Would you be piping now in if Exaggerator had lost? I'm guessing "no."

Add this one to that running total, notice how little it changes the overall trend, and note that since I first posted those stats prior to the 2012 edition, three of the five Ky Derby winners repeated their wins in the Preakness.

That's all you're doing is piping up.

Piping up before the race and now wrong.

Piping up about somebody else piping up.

Why don't you just pipe your way on to something you are right about because we've heard enough piping from you for a while! The opening poster had some good hard common sense and a lot of us agreed. I don't need to huff and puff and blow somebody's house down about every point about a single race. People like you got that call of duty. So Peter Piper Puffed a Pack of Pickled Peppers start piping yourself into oblivion! :D

[RXB]

That's all you're doing is piping up.

Piping up before the race and now wrong.

Piping up about somebody else piping up.

Why don't you just pipe your way on to something you are right about because we've heard enough piping from you for a while! The opening poster had some good hard common sense and a lot of us agreed. I don't need to huff and puff and blow somebody's house down about every point about a single race. People like you got that call of duty. So Peter Piper Puffed a Pack of Pickled Peppers start piping yourself into oblivion! :D

Funny, I don't recall you piping up about this matter after the 2012 Preakness, or 2014 or 2015. Interesting. I wonder why.

Anybody who read what I posted between the Derby and Preakness, it's quite obvious what I said:

Nyquist was the horse to beat, that Exaggerator was the one horse with a legit chance and that the others were outclassed.

Nyquist is more in the class of California Chrome than American Pharoah.

Right after the Derby, when people were talking about Nyquist being near the hot pace, I tried to back them off a bit by noting that he was in excellent position given how the track played that day and thus he probably shouldn't get any extra pace credit nor should Exaggerator be penalized.

Said all along that I was passing because one of the top two would probably win the race. Not sure how my opinions could be interpreted as terribly incorrect.

[stuball]

Your quoting a few writers from the DRF and you are talking about a small sample size...YOUR KIDDING RIGHT? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[dilanesp]

Your quoting a few writers from the DRF and you are talking about a small sample size...YOUR KIDDING RIGHT? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's a total non-sequitur. Critiquing individual handicapping logic is not a claim about the significance of occurrence over repeated trials. Try again.

[ribjig]

56 Preaknesses (starting in 1960) sounds like a lot, but really is a tiny sample sizes.

What that data set is, IMO, is this:
a. best available predictor of next (56) Preaknesses data set :eek: :eek: :eek:
(will Vegas book bet on next :5: :6: Preaknesses??)
b. moderate predictor of next (1) Preakness, better than spinning wheel

RELATED SIDEBAR: DRF CRAP? ALL THE
"NEGATORY POINT SYSTEM" CRAP IN THIS FORUM:
THIS RACE FLUSHED THAT DOWN THE CRAPPER... :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:

[thespaah]

That's all you're doing is piping up.

Piping up before the race and now wrong.

Piping up about somebody else piping up.

Why don't you just pipe your way on to something you are right about because we've heard enough piping from you for a while! The opening poster had some good hard common sense and a lot of us agreed. I don't need to huff and puff and blow somebody's house down about every point about a single race. People like you got that call of duty. So Peter Piper Puffed a Pack of Pickled Peppers start piping yourself into oblivion! :D
That's a lot of "P's"..... :lol: :lol: :lol: