View Full Version : Nick Zito wins at a 22% rate?
The_Knight_Sky
07-07-2010, 07:53 PM
And Juan Serey does 2% points better than Zito over the past year :confused:
http://i29.tinypic.com/69j8n6.jpg
I am amused.
http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/editorial/article.cgi?id=11
Dahoss9698
07-07-2010, 08:04 PM
In case anyone is wondering, the stats are for the current Monmouth meet, not over the past year.
The_Knight_Sky
07-07-2010, 08:14 PM
In case anyone is wondering, the stats are for the current Monmouth meet, not over the past year.
Wanna bet?
Leading Trainers at Monmouth Park
Starting Date: 05/22/2010 Ending Date: 07/06/2010
Nicholas P. Zito 25 8 3 2 $351,250 32% win
Juan Serey 13 5 1 1 $144,300 38% win
Robert Fischer
07-07-2010, 08:17 PM
In case anyone is wondering, the stats are for the current Monmouth meet, not over the past year.
you obviously missed the painting
Dahoss9698
07-07-2010, 08:19 PM
So what are the stats in your first post representing?
The_Knight_Sky
07-07-2010, 08:20 PM
So what are the stats in your first post representing?
There's a link underneath.
It is this week's At A Glance feature from BRIS.
Brogan
07-07-2010, 08:27 PM
The percentage is for a year, the starts and WPS results are for the past week.
Golf and Horses
07-07-2010, 08:28 PM
Leading Trainers at Monmouth Park
Starting Date: 05/22/2010 Ending Date: 07/06/2010
Nicholas P. Zito 25 8 3 2 $351,250 32% win
Juan Serey 13 5 1 1 $144,300 38% win
OK....So both trainers are having an excellent meet. Other than another New York versus New Jersey thread....what's the point???
The_Knight_Sky
07-07-2010, 08:33 PM
....what's the point???
Does Nick Zito win around the country at a 22% rate for 2009-2010 ?
And does Kathy Mongeon do the same?
Dahoss9698
07-07-2010, 08:34 PM
There's a link underneath.
It is this week's At A Glance feature from BRIS.
I saw the link.
Are we to believe based on those stats that Felix Ortiz is a 10% jock? I find that hard to believe. He's a 5% rider this year, which would mean he would have had to be a 15% last year, correct?
Or are the stats just for Monmouth? Might be helpful to explain the cheerleading posts a little better.
The_Knight_Sky
07-07-2010, 08:36 PM
Or are the stats just for Monmouth?
Might be helpful to explain the cheerleading posts a little better.
Not cheerleading.
I'm baffled at the At a Glance feature every week
all around the U.S.
There are some trainers in the Hot Trainers category
that have questionable win percentages listed alongside for 09-10
from coast to coast. I'll try to find another.
Dahoss9698
07-07-2010, 08:39 PM
Not cheerleading.
I'm baffled at the At a Glance feature every week
all around the U.S.
There are some trainers in the Hot Trainers category
that have questionable win percentages listed alongside for 09-10
from coast to coast. I'll try to find another.
Instead of being cryptic, say what you are thinking. Are you questioning Zito as a 22% trainer for the past year?
Does anyone know what this thread is suppose to be getting at?
Golf and Horses
07-07-2010, 08:42 PM
Does Nick Zito win around the country at a 22% rate for 2009-2010 ?
And does Kathy Mongeon do the same?
So this is your bash Nick Zito thread because other low profile trainers have as good or better win %? I'm no cheerleader for any trainer but I just don't get the point of this thread.
The_Knight_Sky
07-07-2010, 08:44 PM
At A Glance - this week at Delaware Park.
http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/editorial/article.cgi?id=7
http://i25.tinypic.com/2enmbuf.jpg
Nothing cryptic. Are these figures accurate?
Who here believes that Leigh Delacour at 21% has been winning at the same rate as Peter Walder and Scott Lake over the past year and half?
Please raise your hand.
GaryG
07-07-2010, 08:45 PM
You are making a mistake if you underestimate Juan Serey at Monmouth. Here is another tidbit: Bruce Alexander is 4 for 8 with Tampa shippers.
Brogan
07-08-2010, 01:36 PM
Serey had quite a run at Monmouth several years ago. He has a much smaller stable these days, but is always someone to pay attention to. He's a good horseman and puts his horses in spots where they can excel.
The_Knight_Sky
07-08-2010, 02:01 PM
http://i30.tinypic.com/2wm2v55.jpghttp://i30.tinypic.com/2wm2v55.jpg
http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/editorial/article.cgi?id=4
Here's this week's At A Glance for Belmont Park.
Carl Domino wins at a 22% rate? Exceeding Scott Lake and Peter Walder?
And Jose L. Espinoza ranks right up there
just 2 percentage points below John Velazquez.
WTG! Jose. :ThmbUp:
the little guy
07-08-2010, 02:11 PM
Does anybody have any idea what the point is?
Cardus
07-08-2010, 02:18 PM
I think that The_Monmouth_Mouthpiece does not believe the stats themselves, as if there are mistakes in them.
I guess.
Maybe.
JBmadera
07-08-2010, 02:22 PM
Does anybody have any idea what the point is?
highlighting hot trainers and jocks? sample size is small but the info is interesting none the less.
The_Knight_Sky
07-08-2010, 02:23 PM
Does anybody have any idea what the point is?
Hold on. I'm waiting to Fabricate something. :ThmbDown:
Dahoss9698
07-08-2010, 02:26 PM
Wouldn't it just be easier to say you think the stats are incorrect? What is the point of dancing around it? If nothing else, you are just being confusing, but if it means less Monmouth cheerleading, go for it.
the little guy
07-08-2010, 02:30 PM
Wouldn't it just be easier to say you think the stats are incorrect? What is the point of dancing around it? If nothing else, you are just being confusing, but if it means less Monmouth cheerleading, go for it.
I honestly think it's because even he has no idea what he's saying. Is the Domino stat, for instance, surprising....and if so because it is high or low?
It is like listening to a baby babbling in a crib and trying to make sense of its words.
The_Knight_Sky
07-08-2010, 02:32 PM
Wouldn't it just be easier to say you think the stats are incorrect?
http://i29.tinypic.com/fxfrsz.gif Ladies and Gentlemen....
The stats are incorrect. And have been for years.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program:
Grumpy Old Men unable to interpret basic numerical data.
Cardus
07-08-2010, 03:16 PM
http://i29.tinypic.com/fxfrsz.gif Ladies and Gentlemen....
The stats are incorrect. And have been for years.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program:
Grumpy Old Men unable to interpret basic numerical data.
It_is_not_about_interpreting_the_data. It_was_about_wondering_if_that_was_where_you_were_ going_with_these_stats. No_one_is_grumpy_here.
JBmadera
07-08-2010, 03:21 PM
It_is_not_about_interpreting_the_data. It_was_about_wondering_if_that_was_where_you_were_ going_with_these_stats. No_one_is_grumpy_here.
I'm pretty darn grumpy most of the time......:D
magwell
07-08-2010, 03:22 PM
I honestly think it's because even he has no idea what he's saying. Is the Domino stat, for instance, surprising....and if so because it is high or low?
It is like listening to a baby babbling in a crib and trying to make sense of its words. Classic ....right on the $$$
Robert Fischer
07-08-2010, 03:36 PM
it looks like the at-a-glance shows hot/cold trainers for the past week and then at the end chunks in their 09-10 % for that respective park.
Not the most useful collaboration of stats, but basic stats alone seldom are.
I took it to mean that the thread starter was pleased that super-trainers weren't dominating the scene. But I could be wrong.
It seemed like the "wise guys" in this thread didn't know what the hell the thread was about, but because their bullshit meters were going off, couldn't leave it alone, so they decided to pester the thread starter in hopes that he would at least define a target for the tomfoolery.
castaway01
07-09-2010, 11:03 AM
[CENTER]http://i30.tinypic.com/2wm2v55.jpghttp://i30.tinypic.com/2wm2v55.jpg
Here's this week's At A Glance for Belmont Park.
Carl Domino wins at a 22% rate? Exceeding Scott Lake and Peter Walder?
And Jose L. Espinoza ranks right up there
just 2 percentage points below John Velazquez.
WTG! Jose. :ThmbUp:
I think you're mainly showing your ignorance of racing around the country. For example, Scott Lake runs a lot of horses at Philadelphia Park and he's around 10% winners there this year. So, while you seem to think he should be 40% or something, 22% for 2009-10 is higher than I'd have expected. The numbers are probably right while your preconceptions are wrong.
The_Knight_Sky
07-09-2010, 11:06 PM
The numbers are probably right while your preconceptions are wrong.
More B.S.
Do us all a favor.
Prove the 09-10 numbers are right.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.