Comments

[v_d_g]

Belmont 9/18/05 Race 2

'KEEN SPIRIT was outrun early, came wide into the stretch and lacked a
rally.'

Another example of great chart work.

And there are those that would actually rely on (adjust for) the comments.

Incredible.

[Vegas711]

Are you serious? You bring up 1 race and you try to make a point that comments are meaningless.

Before I buy this let me get into your thought process , I first need to hit my head against the wall a few times.:bang: :bang:


The comment thread is done.

[Tom]

One more...,:bang:

[v_d_g]

Are you serious? You bring up 1 race and you try to make a point that comments are meaningless.

Before I buy this let me get into your thought process , I first need to hit my head against the wall a few times.:bang: :bang:


The comment thread is done.

Not meaningless Just
Not very accurate

You wouldn't rely on inferior figures
why rely on inferior comments?

make your own

I know, that would mean you'd actually:
have to do some work AND
might actually have an opinion

we wouldn't want that

make sense now?

[Tom]

Tha comment, in proper contexst, could be another peice of the puzzle.

Say the horse was a beaten favorite last time out. He was runinng for $50K and the time befreo that, he won by three at $25K. Today he shows up in front bandages for the first time. He usually presses the pace, and draws the one hole.

That comment might suggest a sore horse - the lack of early speed is a negative, going wide for no apparent reason could be a negative. Lack of respnse late after no early steress alos a negative.

Now suppose it is a month later.
This horse comes back with no works and drops from $50K into $25K. The level he won at two back. He goes off at 2-1. Thorw out the last race, too high class?

I'm thinking I probably will pass this horse.
Put everything in context and you finds it's value.

Alone, the comment means little.

What more do wnat him to say in the comments? The horse didn't fire, came out, and didn't close. You want the guy to guess about stuff? It was a dull comment for a dull race.

[v_d_g]

watch the race boys

reminds me of the episode of of 'The Munsters' where Herman goes to see a psychiatrist. Upon getting a look at Herman, the psychiatrist opens a door, puts his head between the door and the support, and then repeatedly slams the door against his head.

do you guys ever go to the source?

[sjk]

Some of us bet far more races than anyone could conceivably take the time to make comments on.

Perhaps we give up a bit by not watching the races but we make it up on volume.

[46zilzal]

I have seen MANY a horse IMPROVE even though involved with a comment that detracted from their performance. I go for the OBJECTIVE (pace oriented) improvement over the SUBJECTIVE assessment of how much that trouble line MIGHT have cost them. Made many other shy away and got better odds

[GameTheory]

Haven't we had this discussion already? The only thing I find amusing is that people categorize pace figures, etc as "objective", when they of course are also full of errors in accuracy because of the subjective beaten lengths and what not they that are based on, usually with a subjective variant thrown in. The whole point of which is to come up with a subjective estimate of its chances to win a race. Pretty much everything in handicapping is subjective. Subjective doesn't equal useless, or even less useful, than something else that is more "objective".

The skill of the handicapper in putting data to use dwarfs the importance of the data itself. The data that each of use is seriously flawed, but it doesn't matter that much because everyone is in the same boat. If someone else can squeeze profit out of that bad data that you cannot, why begrudge them?

[Vegas711]

Not meaningless Just
Not very accurate

You wouldn't rely on inferior figures
why rely on inferior comments?

make your own

I know, that would mean you'd actually:
have to do some work AND
might actually have an opinion

we wouldn't want that

make sense now?

All your posts are argumentive. Are you a jerk in real life or just here?

[46zilzal]

If someone else can squeeze profit out
of that bad data that you cannot, why begrudge them?
diagree does not mean begrudge or am looking at a differnet dictioany that you?

DISAGREE means to NOT agree with, NOT begrudge

[GameTheory]

diagree does not mean begrudge or am looking at a differnet dictioany that you?

DISAGREE means to NOT agree with, NOT begrudgeThe general implication from the dissenters seems to be that they are telling someone who is doing something successfully that they aren't really doing it successfully because according to "logic" it just couldn't be so, i.e. "comments aren't very accurate, therefore you aren't using them for any useful purpose".

[v_d_g]

All your posts are argumentive. Are you a jerk in real life or just here?

Do you have a tough time dealing with those who don't agree with you?

Assuming you're an adult, that would indicate you have serious issues.

Your way is not necessarily the right way!!! No matter what MOM says.

[the little guy]

Belmont 9/18/05 Race 2

'KEEN SPIRIT was outrun early, came wide into the stretch and lacked a
rally.'

Another example of great chart work.

And there are those that would actually rely on (adjust for) the comments.

Incredible.I haven't watched the race you mention over again, yet, but I think I know what your getting at and strongly agree. As someone who watches race replays extensively at different times during the year, I am astounded by the poor chart work, from points of call, correctly copying the fractions, to trip analysis. I should say that I can only comment on NY, as I don't pay much attention to other circuits, save Kentucky where I find those continued, and inaccurate, " 8 wide stretch " comments to be infuriating.

In cursory glances of California charts I have found the comments to be far more extensive ( I can only assume their accuracy as I don't follow the racing ). And, I am somewaht loathe to criticize the NY chartcaller, as I like him, and respect his knowledge of the game, but I agree that his comments have been severly lacking at least in the last year or so.

[cj]

... save Kentucky where I find those continued, and inaccurate, " 8 wide stretch " comments to be infuriating.


What is sad is that even if accurate, this is completely useless information. Tell me how wide the horse was ON THE TURNS, that would be helpful.

[the little guy]

What is sad is that even if accurate, this is completely useless information. Tell me how wide the horse was ON THE TURNS, that would be helpful.I could do a five hour rant on this.

But then again, what do we know, we're just a bunch of newbies learning the game.

[toetoe]

tlg,

Slightly off topic, but do you see any chance that tracks will go to timing 'backwards'? That is, starting 4 or 5 furlongs from the finish in a sprint, thereby enabling us to compare the interior fractions over the exact same ground, regardless of the diff. in distance? As it is now, the various runups and distances make it a chore to compare early fractions. My proposed way is how they do it in Hong Kong, and if the lengths behind are accurately given, we can get a better picture of how they stack up, pacewise. Another problem is that in 5f. and maybe 5.5f. races, the calls are at the 3/16 and the 3/8, whereas the times are given for the 1/4 and 1/2. Also, that last 1/16 in 8.5f. and 6.5f. races is given timewise, but the first half of that last furlong is a mystery, timewise. Sports Eye had a similar thing in the old days with trotters. They posted the stretch calls and times, when the DRF was just giving the four quarters. To have the final furlong at every distance would be great for comparing runners.

[the little guy]

Interesting. I had not heard of that, and while it's an interesting concept, it is unfortunately hampered by the questionable accuracy of chart calls. However, it is probably reasonably close to correct, though in today's world why racing is so far behind the times in terms of technology is beyond me.

I'm assuming when you say tracks are timing " backwards " that we can do the same thing by just taking the last four furlongs of the time. Am I correct, confused, or yet another newbie struggling to grasp the game.

[GMB@BP]

Am I correct, confused, or yet another newbie struggling to grasp the game.

given your picks at siro's this summer is there a need to answer that? ;)

[toetoe]

I guess it could be like this, timing and calls coinciding:

5f. ... after 1f., 3f., 4f., and finish;
5.5f. ... 1.5f., 3.5, 4.5, fin.;
6f. ... 2, 4, 5, fin.;
6.5 ... 2.5, 4.5, 5.5, fin.;
7 ... 3, 5, 6, fin.;
mile ... 4, 6, 7, fin.;
8.5 ... 4.5, 6.5, 7.5, fin.;
9 ... 5, 7, 8, fin.

The idea is that, regardless of runups and 'about' distances, using the same poles will allow direct comparisons between distinct distances, while the admittedly humanly-imperfect chartcalling will be the same, but no worse.

Also, another source, newspapers, maybe, could give the quarter times that the DRF have no room for, in certain applications. I think DRF already have some 1/4 positions and fractions in distance races, having replaced the 'start' position.

So, comparable first quarters won't be given when pp's from various distances come together, but they're not comparable now. At least the final fractions will be comparable, and one out of two would be better than we have now.

[46zilzal]

To have the final furlong at every distance would be great for comparing runners.

MOST of every race is OVER by the final fraction (on dirt)...final fraction importance is very overblown

[toetoe]

GuMBy,

Thanks to that little smilie simile, I can know that was tongue-in-cheek. YES!

[GMB@BP]

GuMBy,

Thanks to that little smilie simile, I can know that was tongue-in-cheek. YES!

when it comes to zings he has a 10/1 edge on me.