TIAGO vs NO BIZ

[john del riccio]

I have no idea how TIAGO (100 Beyer) was viewed as running a better race than NOBIZ (98 Beyer). I had NO BIZ two lengths better in the Wood than TIAGO did in the SA Derby, and the Beyers have TIAGO a little more than one length better.



John

[OTM Al]

They had Cowtown Cat running the same race as Nobiz as well. While the Nobiz figs are likely correct (though one would also think they hinge on the Excelsior results as well) the other 2 seem pretty suspect to me as well

[bobphilo]

I have no idea how TIAGO (100 Beyer) was viewed as running a better race than NOBIZ (98 Beyer). I had NO BIZ two lengths better in the Wood than TIAGO did in the SA Derby, and the Beyers have TIAGO a little more than one length better.



John

John,



NoBiz got about the same Beyer as in the FOY despite the fact that in the Wood he set a slower pace and saved much more ground. Beyer must have included the Excelsior in his variant. Do you do separate variants to better reflect conditions for a particular race?



Bob

[GMB@BP]

John,



NoBiz got about the same Beyer as in the FOY despite the fact that in the Wood he set a slower pace and saved much more ground. Beyer must have included the Excelsior in his variant. Do you do separate variants to better reflect conditions for a particular race?



Bob

the problem with making the wood figure much faster is you have magna graduate then running a number absolutely off the charts and naught new yorker setting a new career high.

the santa anita number is complicated because they only ran one other route, a mdn race where the horse, a 2.5 million dollar pletcher colt who has some talent, must have run way backwards in his figure off his last (doub it). I think the numbers make some sense, though the tiago figure is probably better at around 97 or 98.

[bobphilo]

the problem with making the wood figure much faster is you have magna graduate then running a number absolutely off the charts and naught new yorker setting a new career high.

the santa anita number is complicated because they only ran one other route, a mdn race where the horse, a 2.5 million dollar pletcher colt who has some talent, must have run way backwards in his figure off his last (doub it). I think the numbers make some sense, though the tiago figure is probably better at around 97 or 98.

One could split the variant and come up with a better figure for both races (Aqueduct is notorious for shifting winds), though, upon closer examination, The Wood figure should not be too much higher. That's why I was asking John if he used seperate variants.
I think the same thing could be done at Santa Anita which would probably give Tiago something like 97 or 98. I agree that's a more likely figure.

Bob

[46zilzal]

One of the things that most colts require in the classics, with rare exception is SEASONING.

[bobphilo]

One of the things that most colts require in the classics, with rare exception is SEASONING.

To quote Bob Baffert, "Only if you're planning to eat them" :D

Anyway, isn't the topic of this thread the figures given for this weekend's races?

Bob

[JPinMaryland]

Can you shed any more light on the other SA race at two turns which I presume was the first race, for maidens 3?

Pavarotti won, in about 4.2 sec. off the track record. What was his previous beyer?

[kenwoodallpromos]

the problem with making the wood figure much faster is you have magna graduate then running a number absolutely off the charts and naught new yorker setting a new career high.

the santa anita number is complicated because they only ran one other route, a mdn race where the horse, a 2.5 million dollar pletcher colt who has some talent, must have run way backwards in his figure off his last (doub it). I think the numbers make some sense, though the tiago figure is probably better at around 97 or 98.
__________
Does this mean that some people may use how fast 2 horses ran on 1 track on 1 day (times 2, SA and AQ), including a MD, to assess both of the other's KY Derby chances?
WOW!

[bobphilo]

__________
Does this mean that some people may use how fast 2 horses ran on 1 track on 1 day (times 2, SA and AQ), including a MD, to assess both of the other's KY Derby chances?
WOW!

Exactly, Ken. That’s why coming up with figures based solely on class pars and only the winners’ times is insane. :rolleyes:
One has to use projections of all the horses that ran reasonably well in the race, and compare that with how they did, INCLUDING the effects of pace and trip on their performances. Results may vary according to the skill of the figure maker, but there is no perfect way to make figures.



Bob

[46zilzal]

I agree, pars can be way off depending upon what happens fractionally before final time. A LOT can happen.

[john del riccio]

One could split the variant and come up with a better figure for both races (Aqueduct is notorious for shifting winds), though, upon closer examination, The Wood figure should not be too much higher. That's why I was asking John if he used seperate variants.
I think the same thing could be done at Santa Anita which would probably give Tiago something like 97 or 98. I agree that's a more likely figure.

Bob

Bob,

The foundation of our ratings is based on individual race variants. PARs and figure histories are also part of the process.

John

[rastajenk]

I thought pars were averages that were supposed to soften the effects of all the different "what happens" that happen during a race. Not ideals, as in golf, but averages. So can pars really be "way off" with a suitable sample size? That's never been my experience.

[46zilzal]

But "pars" average out the unique nature of each contest. No two races are the same, even if the same exact field came back to race against one another every 14 days. Each horse is moving in it's cycle and periodically some would move up, some stay close, and others falling off.

[rastajenk]

Exactly. That's why pars are created. So you don't have to sift through each and every race at a particular class, distance and surface and nitpick all the unique qualities from all those races. That doesn't make the pars "way off," or even very changeable.

What's our point here? :D I'm confused. :confused:

[46zilzal]

Exactly. That's why pars are created. So you don't have to sift through each and every race at a particular class, distance and surface and nitpick all the unique qualities from all those races. That doesn't make the pars "way off," or even very changeable.

What's our point here?

Each race is unique unto itself without a pre-judged "yardstick." The outcome is only dependent on the interplay of the abilities of the horses IN that contest, not a arbitrary average of other unique races. Class (the man-made baloney) has no effect on the unique nature of any one contest. Horses simply run to their relative abilities and form cycle: they can't read the condition book, they simply run.

[john del riccio]

the best way i can explain the flaws with "conventional" pars as a stand alone means to calulate variants is by posing a question like this.


have you ever handivaped a 25k claimer for example and said

"this is the toughest group of 25k horses i have ever seen" or maybe
"this is the weakest group of 25k horses i have ever seen"

fixed pars will throw everything out of wack because the first group of horses
will likely outperform the second group and if you E X P E C T them both to run the SAME par, you will be creating flawed variants.

i hope this helps.

john

[GMB@BP]

Can you shed any more light on the other SA race at two turns which I presume was the first race, for maidens 3?

Pavarotti won, in about 4.2 sec. off the track record. What was his previous beyer?

88 i beleive

[bobphilo]

Exactly. That's why pars are created. So you don't have to sift through each and every race at a particular class, distance and surface and nitpick all the unique qualities from all those races. That doesn't make the pars "way off," or even very changeable.

What's our point here? :D I'm confused. :confused:

rastajenk,

While pars can be useful in projecting how fast a race will be run if one does not have information on the individual horses, a far more accurate projection can be made based on the actual horses in the race. That's because there can be wide variations within the same class, as Zilzal and John have said.
Projections based on the actual individual horses in a race are much more accurate in determining a variant. If one is starting from scratch and doesn't have figures on the individual horses, then one has to start with pars until you have some basis to make projections on the individual horses. Beyer discusses this in explaining how he began making figures.
Hope this clears up the confusion.

Bob

[bobphilo]

Bob,

The foundation of our ratings is based on individual race variants. PARs and figure histories are also part of the process.

John

Thanks, John, that was the impression I got from using your figures. I think that your methodology makes you much less susceptible to the problems others have when there are few, if any, other races on that day's card at the same distance (or same number of turns). You concentrate more on the actual horses in the SPECIFIC race in determining your variant.



Bob

[michiken]

Tiago kind of reminds me of the closing kick of Jazil - when they had the right pace setups...

[kenwoodallpromos]

I thought pars were averages that were supposed to soften the effects of all the different "what happens" that happen during a race. Not ideals, as in golf, but averages. So can pars really be "way off" with a suitable sample size? That's never been my experience.
______________
The ony reason I am answering with an extreme example is because you asked "can?".
Try using pars when the current race is on a muddy track. Or when your horse is at the 12 post.
Pars is fine when you are expecting a par track and a par trip. But how the horse handles the track is just one angle, its importance depending on its relevancy to the track and the importance of other factors.
If your horse has won its last 2 equal price sprint claimers under similar conditions and its current starter race a 3 post 7f vs old routers who have not won in 6 months, then pars may not be the most important factor; but in a much more competitive race where all 6 runners have consistent records, then pars, speed figures, and early speed can make all the difference.
I call it situational handicapping.

[rastajenk]

Situations change. Pars do not. Except, of course, at the end of a meet or after some designated period of time you rework your data to get minor adjustments, or the condition book changes to make old class levels irrelevant. But the idiosyncracies of a particular race don't make you start from scratch.

I get the feeling we're like blind men describing the elephant. Everything in here so far is essentially true, but the different approaches described would make one think we're miles apart. When I said I was confused earlier, I wasn't really. I should have used :bang: instead of :confused: . That's what communicating with the uber contrarian zilzal will do. I was just trying to keep it light. :)

[GMB@BP]

Getting back to the title of this thread, I am not sure its a good thing that a horse like No Biz has not really moved forward as he has gained seasoning. I mean is it that hard to think that Tiago might move forward in the coming months and No Biz be stuck in the 100 or so beyers he is running? Just a thought given one horse is going to be 20/1 and the other is 5/1 or less.

[46zilzal]

That's what communicating with the uber contrarian zilzal will do. I was just trying to keep it light.
Never used the words "You are wrong." People look at things differently which is a HUGE bonus in a parimutuel situation. My favorite words are iconoclast and heteroclite.

After 40 years plus one finds niches that are unique and work for them. Simple as that.