Do DQs always go against you?

[dvlander]

Do races involving DQ'd horses tend to even out for you in the long run? Do you feel you have received the short end of the stick? Have you had an incident where you benefitted greatly from another horse being DQ'd?

I tended to think that DQ's had mostly worked against me long-term. However, in the last week, I have had two horses bumped to first (18-1 on one, 9-2 on the other) as a result of another horse being DQ'd. I am convinced that had the interference not occurred, my horse would NOT have been the winner in either case.

[rufus999]

I would say the best answer you could expect from any punter would be that they even out. Knowing the tremendous odds they're up against, most handicappers develop a pessimistic attitude about the game. We seem to revel in our misery and take great pride and solace in sharing it like old war buddies. Just do a forum count on the posts similar to yours and you will get the picture.

rufus

[ryesteve]

I would say they don't even out, but my answer isn't due to pessimism; I just think that the better you are, the better the chances that luck will work against you, rather than for you. To use a baseball analogy: whenever a guy has been hitting line drives right at people, folks like to say that those kinds of breaks even out, referring to bloops and broken bat hits that drop in. However, if the hitter in question is an excellent hitter who hits a lot more line drives than most other guys, there isn't going to be an opportunity for the breaks to even out for him; all of the line drives he hits means that when luck comes into play, there are many more opportunities for it to be >bad< luck.

[Dave Schwartz]

Boy, do I agree with what Steve said. I actually charted this for kicks awhile back and about 70% of DQs go against me.

[rufus999]

I would say they don't even out, but my answer isn't due to pessimism; I just think that the better you are, the better the chances that luck will work against you, rather than for you. To use a baseball analogy: whenever a guy has been hitting line drives right at people, folks like to say that those kinds of breaks even out, referring to bloops and broken bat hits that drop in. However, if the hitter in question is an excellent hitter who hits a lot more line drives than most other guys, there isn't going to be an opportunity for the breaks to even out for him; all of the line drives he hits means that when luck comes into play, there are many more opportunities for it to be >bad< luck.

You make a good point and I understand the reasoning behind it, but I don't see how it effects the final outcome. Good handicappers consistently pick horses that run in the money. One horse impeding anothers forward progress is a random event that is not subject to statistical analysis therefore logic must prevail in such situations and logic tells us random selections return proportionately. In this case, 50/50.

rufus

[46zilzal]

My best one occurred at the Q horse races where starts are often wild. My horse ran third and the objection sign came up. I knew that my horse had been bothered at the break by one in the next stall, but was surprised to find out that another one was also in the objection that finished second. DOUBLE DQ and I was pushed to first.

Never before or never again. Unique in all my experience.

[delayjf]

I would agree with Steve and Dave but apply that theory to photo finishes as well. Dave, did you track the same thing with photo finishes?

[ryesteve]

You make a good point and I understand the reasoning behind it, but I don't see how it effects the final outcome. Good handicappers consistently pick horses that run in the money. One horse impeding anothers forward progress is a random event that is not subject to statistical analysis therefore logic must prevail in such situations and logic tells us random selections return proportionately. In this case, 50/50.

rufus
The event of one horse impeding another may be random, but the final outcome it's affecting is >not< random. Let's carry the logic to extremes: let's say I'm not just a good handicapper, I am a >perfect< handicapper. Except for racing luck, I have complete foresight as to how a race will be run. So in the absence of luck, I always know what the order of finish will be. If that is the case, luck will ALWAYS work against me.

Take the opposite extreme: I am a lousy handicapper. In fact, my ineptitude is perfect. In a fairly run race, my horse will NEVER win. In this instance, the ONLY way I can is due to racing luck... so luck will ALWAYS work for me.

Now obviously these two extremes don't really exist... but they do illustrate as you move from "perfect foresight" to "perfect ineptitude", the impact of luck moves in a continuum from "always against you" to "always for you"

[JPinMaryland]

What about take out? Take out always seems to work against me. :confused:

[Marshall Bennett]

As a spectator ( I seldom wager anymore ) I am more intrigued by the reactions of others than any event involving myself . About a year ago I was knocked out of a pick4 by a DQ in the last leg , but justly so , an obvious infraction . I'm often amazed at the criticism received by stewards , some warrented , most not . Seldom do you hear storys from those that benifit from a DQ . Its refreshing when you do . More often then not , its crys of outrage from the ones taken down .

[rufus999]

The event of one horse impeding another may be random, but the final outcome it's affecting is >not< random.

Regardless of how you analyze it...how seriously you take it... or how you try to beat it, handicapping remains a game of chance thus it is subject to the elements of chance. Slice it anyway you want to... the statistical law of random selection remains constant. It happens to be one of the foundations of mathematical principal, unerring in its scope and accuracy. We agree on the process but differ on the results. Happens to me all the time.:)

rufus

[ryesteve]

handicapping remains a game of chance thus it is subject to the elements of chance.
I'm not sure if we're in agreement or not... it is certainly subject to chance... I think we all agree on that. Most games DO have a luck element that overlays the skill element; but to call it "a game of chance" makes it sound comparable to a casino game, which it isn't.

[ponyplayerdotca]

"Do DQs always go against you?"

Yes.

[Murph]

Happens to me all the time.:)

rufusI'll bet it does.

Do you really expect serious handicappers to agree that we're playing a
game that is pure chance? If that were so, the true odds for a runner in
any 10 horse field would be 10-1.

That is not the case in any horse race. I believe I can determine the odds
of what will happen better than others. When I perceive that my edge is
greater than my risk, then I wager. Quite often successfully, which may surprise
someone who thinks that it isn't possible to more accurately rate a runners
chances than are offered by the randomness of an occurance.

Murph

[russowen77]

This year I am 1 for 14 on photo or close finishes. I call them head bobs. I am 0 fo 1 on DQ's. The racing lords hate me.:confused:

Last year the numbers were almost entirely reversed and the racing lords loved me. :)

It is a funny game that has a way of evening things out in the long run it seems to me.

[rufus999]

I'll bet it does.

Do you really expect serious handicappers to agree that we're playing a
game that is pure chance?


Murph


yes.:) and no. pure chance would result in a positive ROI.

rufus

[oddsmaven]

One horse impeding anothers forward progress is a random event that is not subject to statistical analysis therefore logic must prevail in such situations and logic tells us random selections return proportionately. In this case, 50/50.
rufus

This comment is wrong for a few reasons of which I'll cite one...there are horses that crank out a high winning % and conversely plenty with a "herd" mentality that finish 2nd and 3rd far more often than they win...someone who's bets focus on the reliable winning types are going to fare badly in the long run with disqualifications because those animals with seconditis, who they aren't betting, will get placed first an inordinate amount of the time.

[ryesteve]

pure chance would result in a positive ROI.
rufus
Ok, I think you really need to explain THAT one...

[Pace Cap'n]

This year I am 1 for 14 on photo or close finishes. I call them head bobs.

A guy at the simulcast calls them "hob-nobs".

He loses a close one--"I got hob-nobbed again!"

[Dave Schwartz]

I would agree with Steve and Dave but apply that theory to photo finishes as well. Dave, did you track the same thing with photo finishes?


Long time ago I did such a report of jockeys and photo finishes. Amazingly, it absolutely pointed to the abilities of the jockeys.

A few highlights:

When Valenzuela was using, he was at 25% - the absolute worst in SoCal. (43% is average) When he was clean, it jumped to over 60%.

The first time I did this, was Desormeaux's first year in SoCal. He was terrible and it was reflected in his 25% photo rate. Two years later he was at 50% or better.

Pincay was traditionally excellent in sprints - low/mid 60s - and somewhat mediocre in routes (i.e. 45%).


Dave

[rufus999]

Ok, I think you really need to explain THAT one...

I appreciate your interest in my posts and find yours enlightening. However, thanks to me I think we are drifting a bit too much OT here so I will think out a new post and we can continue it there. ok? I'll title it 'considering the elements of chance' or something of that nature.:)

rufus

[46zilzal]

In the book Seabiscuit, the author pointed out that George Wolf NEVER lost a photo.

That is hard to believe.

[russowen77]

A guy at the simulcast calls them "hob-nobs".

He loses a close one--"I got hob-nobbed again!"
Man, thanks for that. I like his term better and will change.:D

[DanG]

Long time ago I did such a report of jockeys and photo finishes. Amazingly, it absolutely pointed to the abilities of the jockeys.

Dave,

Curious…

I use basically the same method as part of a rider evaluation. When you say “a long time ago” did you find a reason to suspend the research, or you just don’t isolate it anymore?

[oddsmaven]

Long time ago I did such a report of jockeys and photo finishes. Amazingly, it absolutely pointed to the abilities of the jockeys.
Dave

I'll buy some of the data you went on to mention as meaningful, but isn't it likely that the top jockeys are winning more photos also because they are getting the best mounts, and these good horses are often digging in and prevailing on class in stretch battles?

[juanepstein]

the decision in the 2nd to last race last night at penn national was horrible.

katie was coming up the inside of clifton and was within a head of passing him when clifton came in an pinballed her against the rail which made her take up a bit. on the head on it was clear as day but the stewards said they couldnt see any evidence to change the outcome.:bang:

[Dave Schwartz]

I'll buy some of the data you went on to mention as meaningful, but isn't it likely that the top jockeys are winning more photos also because they are getting the best mounts, and these good horses are often digging in and prevailing on class in stretch battles?

I can't disagree with your point. However, consistently losing the stretch battle certainly seems to have validity.


Dan,

Seems like a good idea to me as well. My biggest challenge is getting the jockey names straightened out.

Dave

[alysheba88]

In the book Seabiscuit, the author pointed out that George Wolf NEVER lost a photo.

That is hard to believe.

Actually she claimed he had not lost a photo in a stakes race.

Was a prelude to the discussion of the Big Cap race where he did go on to lose a photo on Seabiscuit

[alysheba88]

Long time ago I did such a report of jockeys and photo finishes. Amazingly, it absolutely pointed to the abilities of the jockeys.

A few highlights:

When Valenzuela was using, he was at 25% - the absolute worst in SoCal. (43% is average) When he was clean, it jumped to over 60%.

The first time I did this, was Desormeaux's first year in SoCal. He was terrible and it was reflected in his 25% photo rate. Two years later he was at 50% or better.

Pincay was traditionally excellent in sprints - low/mid 60s - and somewhat mediocre in routes (i.e. 45%).


Dave

good stuff