Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GameTheory
If they really don't consider the finish (or filter by it in any way), then I would say the logic of making that an "E" would be something like, "When it DID contend for the lead (bl <= 1.0), it did it at the first call, therefore E. It did not contend for the lead in any other race and those races were not considered." If it had not had that most recent race, probably would have gotten an NA (unknown). It is very likely the rules are different for horses with only a few races (and/or possibly maidens generally) and so you'll see apparent inconsistencies or what seems like guessing (because it is) compared to those horses with more of a record.
Still, I don't see how they can discount the finish totally, or at least use it as a filter. It would be possible to reverse engineer if you had enough data examples...
|
Yeah, I thought of that, that they use a slightly different method for lightly raced horses. And, I agree that the only way an "E" could have been assigned to that horse was because it was a length behind at the 1st call in that one race. I can live with that, as E horses seem to be the easiest style to assign and the anomalies are much fewer than the other styles. For example, many of the E/P horses could qualify as an E horse (many of them having races in which they were 1st at both the 1st and 2nd call, but for some reason Brisnet assigns them an "E/P" instead. This leads me to assume they are using all of a horse's races, or at least the last 10 or so, and looking for the most frequently occurring styles for those races from which to assign their current running style.
