Inquiry: Chalk versus bomb

[porchy44]

I think an inquiry is like a sexual harrassment claim :bang: . There is no definite set of rules and it is like a judgement call by the stewards. Do you think the odds of the horse involved is a factor. I have watched thousands of races. I have not kept records, but it seems like longshots are taken down more often than the chalk.

Does anyone think the odds really factor in the disqualification of a horse ?

[OTM Al]

I think an inquiry is like a sexual harrassment claim :bang: . There is no definite set of rules and it is like a judgement call by the stewards. Do you think the odds of the horse involved is a factor. I have watched thousands of races. I have not kept records, but it seems like longshots are taken down more often than the chalk.

Does anyone think the odds really factor in the disqualification of a horse ?

Does any one think the longshot wasn't that good and is much more likely to be tiring and be the cause of interference?

[FenceBored]

Does any one think the longshot wasn't that good and is much more likely to be tiring and be the cause of interference?

Thank you for proving his point.

[OTM Al]

Thank you for proving his point.

Honestly I thought his point was that it was some kind of fix because that has been the implication of every thread I've ever seen on this subject. I don't think the odds have a causal effect. They are a proxy for the quality of a horse. If we remove odds entirely, and I said there is a bad horse and a good horse contending in the lane, which do you think was more likely to cause interference? So clearly it is logical that longshots are more likely to cause interference and thus more likely to come down than short price horses, but it is a correlation effect, not one of causality.

[porchy44]

Honestly I thought his point was that it was some kind of fix because that has been the implication of every thread I've ever seen on this subject.
.


I didnt imply a "fix". But maybe the "benefit of the doubt" towards lower price horses or worried about horsemen/public reaction.

Does anyone notice though what I have noticed about lower priced horses
having better chance of staying up ?

[OTM Al]

I didnt imply a "fix". But maybe the "benefit of the doubt" towards lower price horses or worried about horsemen/public reaction.

That would be a fix.

[FenceBored]

Honestly I thought his point was that it was some kind of fix because that has been the implication of every thread I've ever seen on this subject. I don't think the odds have a causal effect. They are a proxy for the quality of a horse. If we remove odds entirely, and I said there is a bad horse and a good horse contending in the lane, which do you think was more likely to cause interference? So clearly it is logical that longshots are more likely to cause interference and thus more likely to come down than short price horses, but it is a correlation effect, not one of causality.

The question (to my eye) was not "Do higher odds horses cause more incidents", but rather "Is the percentage of DQs for higher priced horses disproportionately greater than the percentage of incidents they caused?" Given the widespread nature of the thinking you outlined, the answer clearly and logically must be "yes."

[porchy44]

Boy! I wish we had a steward on the board to chime in.

[OTM Al]

The question (to my eye) was not "Do higher odds horses cause more incidents", but rather "Is the percentage of DQs for higher priced horses disproportionately greater than the percentage of incidents they caused?" Given the widespread nature of the thinking you outlined, the answer clearly and logically must be "yes."

That is the question I saw as well. I am saying higher odds horses get dqed more often because the are more likely to be (relatively) bad horses and thus more likely to be the cause of an incident as they tire. You seem to be implying that the high odds horse gets dqed even if it didn't cause the incident, which does not logically follow ex ante. I'm saying put away the tin hat because there is a real and valid reason for this.

[TheGhostOfOscarB]

My gut says yes, long vs short, the long comes down more often.

Easy enough to prove, you need the data.

And the notion that a 10-1 is more likely to cause interference, is kind of absurd. :eek:

[OTM Al]

My gut says yes, long vs short, the long comes down more often.

Easy enough to prove, you need the data.

And the notion that a 10-1 is more likely to cause interference, is kind of absurd. :eek:

I agree that the long shot comes down more often. I think that the stewards being influenced by the odds is absurd. :eek:

[Jeff P]

I'm thinking who rides plays a role in determining final odds... and therefore plays a role in who stays up and who gets taken down.

I think a lot of times the stewards are trying to send a message to the rider:

"We are not going to let you ride like that."

Example... On 7/3/2011 at Lone Star in R7:

During the stretch run, the #5 horse at 13-1 headed the #10 horse at 9-5 and appeared to have the race won.

There was an incident right before the wire. The rider of the #10 horse never quit and started to come back on the rail.

My rider went to the whip right handed, and of course, drifted in right before the wire. There was an inquiry/objection. (As soon as I saw the head on replay I knew my horse was coming down.)

In my opinion (and I need to emphasize that part) had my rider had the ability to go to the left hand - or barring that - if he had simply hand ridden to the wire - he still would have won the race - and the stewards would have let the original order of finish stand.

When the stewards took my horse down (again my opinion) they were trying to send a message to the rider:

When your horse drifts in and makes contact with another horse, we are not going to let you keep hitting him right handed. Period.


-jp

.

[FenceBored]

That is the question I saw as well. I am saying higher odds horses get dqed more often because the are more likely to be (relatively) bad horses and thus more likely to be the cause of an incident as they tire. You seem to be implying that the high odds horse gets dqed even if it didn't cause the incident, which does not logically follow ex ante. I'm saying put away the tin hat because there is a real and valid reason for this.

You aren't making any sense.

Let's imagine a population of two horse incident between a low odds horse (LOH) and a high odds horse (HOH) where the instigator finishes in front of the victim has the HOH as the instigator 62% of the time. And in the sub-population of incidents in which an inquiry occurs the HOH is the instigator in 68% of the cases. Finally the sub-sub-population of cases where a DQ follows from the inquiry has the HOH is the instigator 72% of the time.

Are you really saying that the HOH instigation rate of 62% in the total population would be a "real and valid reason" for a HOH 72% instigation rate in the subset of DQs?

[v j stauffer]

The odds of the horses has absolutely no bearing on judging the incident. In fact I would say 90% of the time the stewards are oblivious to what each horses odds are.

[Greyfox]

The odds of the horses has absolutely no bearing on judging the incident. In fact I would say 90% of the time the stewards are oblivious to what each horses odds are.

Well you've been a steward and probably would know better than anyone on this board.
However, in Southern California's major ovals, (where you reside) whenever there is an incident between one of my boomers and the "chalk" it certainly seems that the boomer will get taken down more often. Certainly, the track gets more money from "breakage" when a favorite wins than a boomer.
I don't have any data to support that suspicion so I'll take you at your word.

[v j stauffer]

Well you've been a steward and probably would know better than anyone on this board.
However, in Southern California's major ovals, (where you reside) whenever there is an incident between one of my boomers and the "chalk" it certainly seems that the boomer will get taken down more often. Certainly, the track gets more money from "breakage" when a favorite wins than a boomer.
I don't have any data to support that suspicion so I'll take you at your word.

The stewards work for the state. Not the track. They have no interest in breakage or anything else that involves the tracks finances.

[TheGhostOfOscarB]

I am well aware that in theory, odds should be a non issue.

Consider that , especially in the case of a 'close call' , the stews might not want to piss off a majority of bettors who are on the favorite , in order to placate a small number who bet the 20-1.

Yes, is there is an obvious foul, it won't matter. But the stews are , despite rumors to the contrary, human.

[v j stauffer]

I am well aware that in theory, odds should be a non issue.

Consider that , especially in the case of a 'close call' , the stews might not want to piss off a majority of bettors who are on the favorite , in order to placate a small number who bet the 20-1.

Yes, is there is an obvious foul, it won't matter. But the stews are , despite rumors to the contrary, human.

Complete non factor. That would be like saying the umpire would call a close play at second in favor of the Yankees so as not to piss off a large home crowd.

[ponyplayerdotca]

Complete non factor. That would be like saying the umpire would call a close play at second in favor of the Yankees so as not to piss off a large home crowd.

With all due respect, it is not the same.

If an umpire makes a call that "pisses off a large home crowd", those people don't lose any money based on that decision, and are still going to keep coming to baseball games.

If a steward makes a call that "pisses off the majority of bettors on a favorite", they do lose their money, and potentially, turn off many more "return horseplayers" from bothering to return to the track (and wager there) if they felt they've been robbed (literally).

Just my two cents.

[OTM Al]

You aren't making any sense.

Let's imagine a population of two horse incident between a low odds horse (LOH) and a high odds horse (HOH) where the instigator finishes in front of the victim has the HOH as the instigator 62% of the time. And in the sub-population of incidents in which an inquiry occurs the HOH is the instigator in 68% of the cases. Finally the sub-sub-population of cases where a DQ follows from the inquiry has the HOH is the instigator 72% of the time.

Are you really saying that the HOH instigation rate of 62% in the total population would be a "real and valid reason" for a HOH 72% instigation rate in the subset of DQs?

You are making an a priori assumption that the high odds horse is taken down more often than merited in this "example". Why not make it 72%, 68% and 62%. The argument is just as valid. Look at what Vic is saying about CA. In NY, only one of 3 is an employee of the track, so the track wanting to make the largest number of people happy argument is also silly. People notice and remember high odds dqs because high odds catch the eye. Low odds dqs are quikcly forgotten by most.

[Robert Fischer]

In my opinion (and I need to emphasize that part) had my rider had the ability to go to the left hand - or barring that - if he had simply hand ridden to the wire - he still would have won the race - and the stewards would have let the original order of finish stand.

yea i've noticed that

sometimes the manner and place of the infraction matters more than how it affected the outcome.

I understand, because if they didn't call those fouls, you would have guys doing it even more than they are.

In a similar type of setup...
if maybe WORSE happens in a different place
Maybe you have a horse(a solid contending longshot) on the rail entering the stretch (lets say it's a turf race and he's coming from OFF the pace) who needs to come off the rail for the drive... and then some goofy horse with no real shot barges around the turn and lugs in enough to block/ruin your horse's shot, you will never get that call. Sometimes those are good because the horse finishes 6th or something and was one of the top 3(and next time in a better spot u get a price). But it's funny how the Inquiry's go beyond the change in outcome.

[porchy44]

People notice and remember high odds dqs because high odds catch the eye. Low odds dqs are quikcly forgotten by most.

After reading all replies to my original post, "I could believe" odds are not a factor in DQ's. BUT even without data to prove it, I feel certain that the chalk is dq'ed at a lower percentage than longshots. So the waters on this subject is even more muuddied than ever before (at least to me).

[v j stauffer]

With all due respect, it is not the same.

If an umpire makes a call that "pisses off a large home crowd", those people don't lose any money based on that decision, and are still going to keep coming to baseball games.

If a steward makes a call that "pisses off the majority of bettors on a favorite", they do lose their money, and potentially, turn off many more "return horseplayers" from bothering to return to the track (and wager there) if they felt they've been robbed (literally).

Just my two cents.

That may be an unfortunate byproduct of the decision. Any decision will have people who are thrilled and people who are pissed. That's a constant reality in my world. The only focus should be getting the call right. As ice cold and harsh as it may sound. The fallout cannot be and is not our concern.

[Stillriledup]

That would be a fix.

Its the same as a baseketball referee giving Michael Jordan the benefit of the doubt on a close call when he wouldnt give a rookie the same benefit of the doubt. Its not a fix, its just 'unwritten rules'

As far as the OP goes, i havent noticed that shorter prices get benefits of doubts in inquiries, i would need to see a 'study' done that shows statistically favorites get more benefits.

If the OP is right and this judging takes place, it might be that the better jocks are usually riding the shorter prices and the no-name jocks are usually riding the bombs, a Chris McCarron or Jerry Bailey might get the benefit of the doubt riding a 4-5 shot than Joe Blow gets riding a 20-1 shot. So, it might be a 'jockey thing' and not necessarily an odds thing.

[Greyfox]

The stewards work for the state. Not the track. They have no interest in breakage or anything else that involves the tracks finances.

Who does the annual Performance Review of Stewards??
The track or the State or both??
Surely if there is a crappy Steward there must be some quality control measures.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Who does the annual Performance Review of Stewards??
...

Pace Advantage forum members.

[FenceBored]

You are making an a priori assumption that the high odds horse is taken down more often than merited in this "example".


That was the assumption from the OP which you had been trying to explain away.


Why not make it 72%, 68% and 62%. The argument is just as valid.


What argument is that, that favorites are taken down for fouling longshots more readily than longshots would be taken down for fouling favorites? Interesting, got anything to support this counterintuitive theory?


Look at what Vic is saying about CA. In NY, only one of 3 is an employee of the track, so the track wanting to make the largest number of people happy argument is also silly.


Federal judges are not immune to the subtle (and not so subtle) pressures of popular opinion, but stewards are? I thought we were having an actual debate, but now I see you're just being an apologist for "the MAN." :D

Anyway, with no disrespect to Vic intended, but stewards are human and humans have biases. They may think they're not taking odds into account, but when a steward starts making judgements about how a steadied horse would have finished if it had not been stopped then I have a hard time believing his mind wouldn't be influenced by reputation as exemplified by what you would call the 'odds as proxy for quality.' If it's a 'quality' horse, it would be thought more likely to have finished up well and a bad showing following the incident would be viewed as more likely to have been caused by the incident. If it's not a 'quality' horse, it would be more readily thought that at most the incident accelerated a giving way which would have occurred without the incident so 'it really didn't change things.' See, all reasonable, all logical, yet sutbly biased. That's why I'm not a big fan of the "didn't affect the order of finish" school of thought, it's too subjective for my tastes.


People notice and remember high odds dqs because high odds catch the eye. Low odds dqs are quickly forgotten by most.

We were discussing a subset of incidents wherein there is a marked disparity between the odds of the two horses. Do you really want to argue that people remember a 30-1 shot taken down for clearly interfering with a 2-1 favorite more readily than the 2-1 favorite getting taken down for clearly interfering with what Stillriledup calls a "no-hoper?" In the first case almost everyone would agree that justice was done and remark on the missed opportunity for the favorite. An unfortunate break, yes, but not a searing into memory kind of thing. In the second case a favorite, who was clearly the best horse in the race, gets DQed for (in the words of the posters who would be coming out of the woodwork) 'barely touching some nag who never had a frickin' shot at hitting the board anyway.' Seems more memorable, somehow.

On the other hand, the longshot being left up is probably remembered more (as being against the natural order) than the favorite getting left up. "Hey, he would have won anyway so what's the big deal."

All these little things point to favorites in particular and low odds horses generally being left up at a disproportionate rate compared to high odds horses. No nefarious conspiracy needed, just human nature.

[senortout]

This all boils down to your interpretation of 'long shot'!

If I can dope out an underbet horse who I think has an excellent chance to win or hit the board, as long as he beats the chalk, he is a long shot. Upon occasion, the long shot is exactly that...10 to one or better, and holds exactly the same opinion in view of the probable race outcome. Only difference being, in those instances, I have an apprehensive nag in the bag of my mind, asking me what I missed on this animal!

now, when one of these beats the chalk, and the steward announce a look-see....I would think the table would be clear with respect to favoring one atop the other.

Many of you are assuming the longer priced of the two "over-achieved" simply because he was not a public choice. And as a result was staggering from the effort, whilst the chalk was not, although he was not able to prevail....opposite of my thoughts on the matter.

[v j stauffer]

Again, you guys are forgetting that in the great majority of the cases stewards are not aware of the odds of the horses they are looking at while judging an incident.

Odds, understandably are on the radar for bettors. Not for stewards. All participants are created equal in the eyes of the judges.

[TheGhostOfOscarB]

Again, you guys are forgetting that in the great majority of the cases stewards are not aware of the odds of the horses they are looking at while judging an incident.

Odds, understandably are on the radar for bettors. Not for stewards. All participants are created equal in the eyes of the judges.

Kind of scary, aint it? How do they spot a stiffed favorite if they don't know the odds? Can't have it both ways

[Greyfox]

Vic:
You said that the Stewards are employed by the State in California.
I'm still waiting for you to inform us about:

"Who does the annual Performance Review of Stewards??
The track or the State or both??"

[classhandicapper]

I think politics creep into the decision making process in marginal cases.

[Stillriledup]

Vic:
You said that the Stewards are employed by the State in California.
I'm still waiting for you to inform us about:

"Who does the annual Performance Review of Stewards??
The track or the State or both??"

To add to GF's question, after these 'reviews' are over, is anyone ever let go from their duties? Or, do they just smack the wrist and let the incompetence continue?

What i'm asking is this. Has anyone (specific name) been fired in the last 10 years in So Cal for 'botching' a DQ.
Thanks vic.

[v j stauffer]

Vic:
You said that the Stewards are employed by the State in California.
I'm still waiting for you to inform us about:

"Who does the annual Performance Review of Stewards??
The track or the State or both??"

I posted an answer to this last night. Don't know where it's gone too.

Stewards are selected by the CHRB Executive Director with some input from a stewards comittee which is comprised of some other members of the CHRB.

At least twice a year, sometimes as as many as four, all stewards will attend a meeting conducted by the chairman of the CHRB and the Executive Director.

This meeting is designed to review new rules and points of emphasis.

There is also an extensive film review session where interesting racing incidents are debated.

[Greyfox]

Sorry Vic, that is not the type of Performance Evaluation that I was looking for. Perhaps you misunderstood my question.
Most employees in most jobs are given individual Performance Evaluations
on an annual basis. They are told what their strengths are and what weaknesses have to be improved.

Who does the Performance Evaluations of each individual Steward?

[PaceAdvantage]

I posted an answer to this last night. Don't know where it's gone too.It's in another thread...one thread ain't big enough for Greyfox and VJS apparently... :lol:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1134488#post1134488

[Greyfox]

It's in another thread...one thread ain't big enough for Greyfox and VJS apparently... :lol:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1134488#post1134488

Yes. I made another post in this thread. If it is in another thread, as you say it is, then gremlins have taken it there.

[v j stauffer]

It's in another thread...one thread ain't big enough for Greyfox and VJS apparently... :lol:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1134488#post1134488

Wow. There it is. Thanks

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes. I made another post in this thread. If it is in another thread, as you say it is, then gremlins have taken it there.Has nothing to do with gremlins.

[Greyfox]

Has nothing to do with gremlins.

My mistake then. I had no intention to post in that thread.

I'm still waiting to hear "Who does the individual performance appraisals of Stewards?"