Giles' latest newsletter

[JulieKrone]

http://www.paceappraiser.com/newsupdate.html Note: when the next article comes out, you will need to look in the archives for this 1/17/06 article.

Food for thought. Not sure I agree, or if I even understand what he means.

He expounds re how he doesn't believe in bias. He then goes on to disagree with those who supposedly keep martingaling when confronted with a particular streak of a 50/50 random event, like a toin coss: believing that they are due. But that's not a case of someone following bias, or even knowing what that is-- it's just superstition. I would be looking to ride the coattails of such a bias, on the chance that something may be affecting it; I don't even need to understand what or why.

Later on, and seemingly unrelatedly, he shows an interesting numerical race strength rating system based on bias.

Things that make you go hmmm.........

[kenwoodallpromos]

Tongue-in-cheek dis-ing.
Giles is talking degree of a variable's affect- and saying Klein is putting all his eggs in one basket.
As Giles says, each race is independent, and is influenced by many variables (angles, factors); What Giles did not say cleary is that some varibles can continue through more than 1 race (track structure), and some can change with every race (post position).
What Giles also did not say is that some variables' effects can make a varying degree of influence depending on the amount of effect (rain). Giles sounds like he thinks the amount and condition of the dirt does not make as big and continuous as influence as he says Klein thinks. I say you have to be able to judge on a race-by-race basis how big of an influence various variables make. If Giles feels he is able to assign a certain amount of influence due to "the dirt" and have success figuring it to remain at the same level of influence at all times, more power to him! I say the amount of influence "the dirt" can have can be continuous, or can be a fairly unstable factor. But "the dirt" is an area which most people seem to believe is more art than science.

[cj]

I agree about one thing, the numbers as Klein suggests using them are worthless. However, if you make them and actually study where the extremes are, they are a pretty useful piece of information.

[rastajenk]

That was kind of interesting. Got to appreciate the interjection of philosophy into a racing article like Cajun spices into an about-to-be deep-fried turkey. I tend to agree with his overall stance....I mentioned bias in the Meadows' Misconceptions thread. I've never totally rejected track bias as a factor, and I've never done any of the statistical analyses common on this forum, but I've always been skeptical; mainly because I've never seen anyone explain how the bias is created, apart from obvious things like mud or frozen clods flying back into the pack of trailing horses. When someone claims a dry track favored closers over a period of time and looks to the charts to prove it, I have to be suspicious of that kind of flimsy reasoning.

[ryesteve]

I'll criticize Giles for the same reason I criticized Klein: if you're going to make assertions and pronouncements about the viability/worthlessness of a set of numbers, provide some numbers to back it up. It would've been painfully easy to present a series of Klein bias numbers at given tracks and prove that the sequence was random.

[rrbauer]

First, most of the Giles' piece is gobbledygook. I mean it's a friggin' horse race!

Second (clipped from the piece):
"When horses come back and the rating tells you the day was hard, really fast like +60 or something, then you’ll know to upgrade his chances in today’s race. If the rating is in the minus range then you’ll know the horses had a very easy day of it and so you can downgrade its chances in today’s race."

What happened to today being an independent event? Ooohhh! I got it...the independent stuff only counts when I'm not trying to sell you something.

Spare me.............

[Wiley]

I agree with the independence of each event (race) but this independence does not preclude predictablity. Even the act of flipping a coin can be broken down into the physics of the event to where given enough measurable information; force of flip, number of rotations, air pressure, landing surface, etc. someone could probably beat a 50% edge of random probablity. I saw a show where a group of physic's guys used this type of measuring to gain an edge at the roulette wheel which is pretty random much like flipping a coin.

If something is done in the same manner over and over again then through measurable means predictability can be improved upon. Granted racing is very complex as Giles points to and each race is unique but not completely foriegn to prior events, there are many similarities and I think as handicappers that is what we do - look for similarities or patterns between events. If there were not similarities and each event was truly random then everyone who consistently beats the races would be doing so by mere coincidence or luck.
If the inside part of a track is tighter or deeper than the outside part of a track and without the benefit of the ability to quanitify this through physical measureable means; force impact resistance, material composition, etc. then our only course of action is to define the results based on our predicted results versus the actual results and look for variances. How accurate this is will depend on the predicted results accuracy of course the preferred method would be to have the measured data for the track each day to analyze but this is not going to happen.

I don't know about KSP but have always thought defining a track bias to be very complex though anecdotaly a few years ago Keenland's spring meet sure favored inside speed!
CJ mentions analyzing extremes in the results, sounds like a good way to approach track bias.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Penn National's resurfaced track gets thumbs up as racing resumes.
The article says the cushion was screwed up but the base was worn evenly so left alone.
6 sample ways a cushion can be uneven= Inefficient degree of incline on turns; Wrong composition of the dirt; Rain; Wind; Harrowing height adjustment difference; Base deteriorating; Bad drainage; Moving or filling with dirt incorrectly.
Recently several tracks had to call in a former or other expert consultant (track super) to fix track dynamic problems; the track would not spend extra money to do that if there was FULL confidence in their current super to handle any and all problems.
Even Polytrack is subject eventually to several of these problems; I am curious about the possiblility of composite material (the rubber) of Polytrack moving toward the top of the cushion eventually and it may still be subject to wind, incline, drainage, and/or base problems. Hopefully not prior to its lifespan ending but that has a 2-year window!

[shanta]

First, most of the Giles' piece is gobbledygook. I mean it's a friggin' horse race!

Second (clipped from the piece):
"When horses come back and the rating tells you the day was hard, really fast like +60 or something, then you’ll know to upgrade his chances in today’s race. If the rating is in the minus range then you’ll know the horses had a very easy day of it and so you can downgrade its chances in today’s race."

..


I might be mistaken BUT I took this as a JOKE. He does say right before showing this that it is NOT to be tried on your home track and that it is strictly for entertainment.

I don't know him from a hole in the wall but find his writings regarding pace very interesting and thought provoking. That's what I am looking for :)

Richie

[andicap]

Exactly it was a joke -- and pretty explicited stated as such. Doesn't anyone understand irony?

randy's kind of a philosopher and a winning handicapper so ignore what he says at your own peril. You don't have to agree with everything he says about bias but he has a point. And what's wrong with bringing a little Descartes and Aristotle into our thinking: Logical thinking applies to handicapping as it does to any other science. We've had a bunch of discussions here that bring in the notion of randomness, etc., so why not General Systems?

He is not dismissing bias of all types. He says weather-related biases are real, that is tracks that have been affected by the elements, or lack thereof: e.g., a drought causing the notorious "cuppy" tracks. (BTW, how come you never see trainers use that as an excuse these days? When I was kid every bad race was the result of a 'cuppy' track.)
Randy also agrees there are structural biases like the early speed at Keeneland And he does not dismiss the prospect of a good rail or a deep rail.

What Randy objects to is a rating that uses a single variable -- "dirt" -- as you will -- to gauge if a track played early or late. There are, he maintains, dozens of factors that can affect whether a horse goes wire to wire or closes: pace for example. Or he might wire the field because he's the fastest horse in the race.

Moreover, he is open-minded about it. Giles says he is willing to be shown that there are non-weather related day-to-day changes in how a racetrack plays.

Now I've seen on CJ's board instances where horses who ran against a "bias" came back and won. That's worth paying attention to and giving the issue further analysis -- and I'd like to think that presented with some hard evidence like that, not just anecdotally but systematically, he would listen.
I say not just anecdotally because for all the races where people win due to a bias how many did they lose because the perceived bias was a mirage?

[cj]

randy's kind of a philosopher and a winning handicapper so ignore what he says at your own peril.

How do you know?

[rrbauer]

andicap wrote:
"What Randy objects to is a rating that uses a single variable -- "dirt" -- as you will -- to gauge if a track played early or late. There are, he maintains, dozens of factors that can affect whether a horse goes wire to wire or closes: pace for example. Or he might wire the field because he's the fastest horse in the race."

Precisely my point from a previous post....it's a friggin horse race. If you want to bring into play some of the great thinkers maybe you should start with Jockey IQ's....

[GMB@BP]

First, most of the Giles' piece is gobbledygook. I mean it's a friggin' horse race!

Second (clipped from the piece):
"When horses come back and the rating tells you the day was hard, really fast like +60 or something, then you’ll know to upgrade his chances in today’s race. If the rating is in the minus range then you’ll know the horses had a very easy day of it and so you can downgrade its chances in today’s race."

What happened to today being an independent event? Ooohhh! I got it...the independent stuff only counts when I'm not trying to sell you something.

Spare me.............

I think he states in the next paragraph that he was just joking using the methods in the book.

[JulieKrone]

Just what my lil' ole puny brain needed: translations, interpretations and alliterations; thank you one and all.

Re bias nuts and bolts:
Really respect a utility like Allways, that allows for bias stats to be massaged & presented according to one's preferences, rather than in the general templates too widely in circulation.

It helps to understand the why of a particular bias, but I don't require this personally. Even if it's only a temporary statistical anomaly, I'll jump aboard right away and ride until the horse stops rocking.

Also, sometimes it hurts when we do understand why: when it's too easily understood by us, it's likely that even the 0 for 80 jocks/trainers are aware and plan accordingly, effectively ceating chaos that causes unpredictable results-- such as if the bias did not exist to begin with.

For instance: when the Meadowlands first inaugurated, it had a period of a few years which at timespresented ++rail and ++ speed bias(likely due mainly to not being able to adjust the surface from the harness to the flats, and maybe exacerbated by high winds & cold weather). Whoever broke on top and grabbed the rail was your winner-- to the point that the field would often finish single file/ merry-go-round style in the order in which they broke and ran early.
Back then it was very easy to handicap and take advantage of this:
fields would normally have many more closers(as racing wasn't so speed-oriented then), bias/pace/trips(heck, even justspeed figs) theorems hadn't yet hit mainstream(& ergo the steam of consciousness of every jock & trainer).

Fast forward 2/3 decades later to a similarly-pronounced bias at the Aqu Inner: there were spells when whoever had the rail won, even a superior speed horse on the two path or stalking on the rail, had no chance vs. cheap speed on the wood. So, on a typical mile & 70 start you would see Julio Pezua and co. coming out of the gate like Ichabod Crane, whipping like mad, even some of the jocks on closing horses. This would often continue down the whole backstretch: jocks figured they would lose anyhow, if not able to secure the lead and rail, But guess what, even with such a strong bias, this would be able to burn the speed out.

Life sucks and then you die folks.