Riddle me this Batmen (and Batwomen):

[cj]

Originally Posted by jay68802

On Feb 24th there were two 7.5f, 16,000 claiming races on the turf. One was run in 1:29.9, This horse won in 1:28 and got a 78 Beyer. The 2 mile races on that day were run in 1:36.1 and 136.8. The 3 in this race won the faster of the two and got a 87 Beyer. If I figure this correctly the 7 should have earned a Beyer in the range of 88 to 92 and not a 78.

I'm with you on this horse, looking at the figures, up in class and distance, he is a stretch. But but being bet to 7/5 in the last dump? That is something else.

This kind of stuff just does not work at Gulfstream due to the wildly varying run ups used for the same distance races on the same day nearly every day.

Comparing any raw times there is pure folly. Maybe trying to make figures there on turf is as well for a variety of reasons. The timer, the bogus listed distances, the wide range of run ups from virtually none to as much as two football fields, using two or three different rail settings each day, etc, etc.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Yes, the raw times are not ideal in general, but in this case, we are talking about 3 second or more differences between the 3/4 fractions. Uncle B had been tasting fractions in the range of 1:10+ while the other horses were wading through pedestrian 1:13+ fractions. I doubt any pace adjustments could erase that deficit.

The difference between 1:10 and 1:13 isn't as real as it is ostensible. Add to the mix the differences in surface and distance...and the difference between the two clockings becomes only slight. And, when we take "class" into consideration, the difference disappears altogether. IMO, at least.

[affirmedny]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

If you can put your hands on the PPs for today's eighth race at Gulfstream Park, I want someone to put together a cogent argument for how in the world the following happened:

1. Uncle B won the race
2. Most shocking, how he went off as the 3-1 second choice

Discuss.

if only you had "direct access to the pools" then you'd have seen it.....

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Even though Royal Blessing was a length and a half behind Uncle B at the 6F of their respective races, he had run faster than his seemingly faster counterpart...because the pace of the former race was faster than that of the latter.

But was Royal Blessing likely to get the all important benefit of that fast pace setup today?

On paper, a decided "NO".

It is also folly to compare the inner splits of 7.5F races and 1 1/16M races. IMO, of course.

It wasn't a direct comparison. It was to establish Royal Blessing as being highly dependent on the early pace. Maybe I was being presumptive in thinking that such a characteristic might manifest at a whole range of distances...or at least the furlong difference between 7.5f and 1 1/16M races.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

But was Royal Blessing likely to get the all important benefit of that fast pace setup today?

On paper, a decided "NO".


It wasn't a direct comparison. It was to establish Royal Blessing as being highly dependent on the early pace. Maybe I was being presumptive in thinking that such a characteristic might manifest at a whole range of distances...or at least the furlong difference between 7.5f and 1 1/16M races.

It is highly unlikely those races were even close to a furlong apart but were just timed very differently. I'll look up the details tomorrow on the races.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The difference between 1:10 and 1:13 isn't as real as it is ostensible. Add to the mix the differences in surface and distance...and the difference between the two clockings becomes only slight. And, when we take "class" into consideration, the difference disappears altogether. IMO, at least.

Uncle B and his chief pace rival, Chief Exchanger, ran on the same day, over the same turf course, at distances that differed by a 1/16th of a mile.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

But was Royal Blessing likely to get the all important benefit of that fast pace setup today?

On paper, a decided "NO".

IMO...Royal Blessing doesn't have the look of a horse who demands the "all-important benefit" that the fast pace-setup provides. The horse likes to race in middle position early...and usually catches up with the pace-leaders by the time they round the final turn. The "all-important fast pace" is most required by the more extreme closers. Royal Blessing has won 10 of 40 races on the turf...can the grass surface be that "accommodating", pace-wise?

Yes...the horse ran badly in 3 races where the early pace was relatively "slow". But he was 48-1 and 16-1 in two of those races...while the third one was on a softer turf course. Inconclusive evidence...IMO.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Uncle B and his chief pace rival, Chief Exchanger, ran on the same day, over the same turf course, at distances that differed by a 1/16th of a mile.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one...because we have differing handicapping opinions. IMO...you are grossly underestimating the task that the speed-type horse faces when it stretches out for the first time on the grass while rising steeply in class...especially when it is asked to face "classier" horses with similar running styles as its own. But, hey...you are entitled to any opinion that you fancy.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by cj

It is highly unlikely those races were even close to a furlong apart but were just timed very differently. I'll look up the details tomorrow on the races.

If we are talking about the races Uncle B and Chief Exchanger ran on Feb 24, I wouldn't be surprised if you are correct. It's a minor point really, because I would agree with anyone who suggests that Chief Exchanger was the most likely frontrunner. In fact, that is exactly as it turned out, with Chief Exchanger setting the pace and Uncle B pressing.

What is also predictable on paper is that these two horses had a decided pace advantage over the rest of the field as they were facing a host of elderly runners none of whom showed consistent early speed save for one or two instances.

Meanwhile the top two finishers were both reformed sprinters shifting to the turf and stretching out as miler-types--and doing it successfully. In addition, both were in the recent past racing at levels well above this $16K condition unlike the majority of the rest of the field.

In hindsight it's not too surprising that they simply ran the field off its feet.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by cj

This kind of stuff just does not work at Gulfstream due to the wildly varying run ups used for the same distance races on the same day nearly every day.

Comparing any raw times there is pure folly. Maybe trying to make figures there on turf is as well for a variety of reasons. The timer, the bogus listed distances, the wide range of run ups from virtually none to as much as two football fields, using two or three different rail settings each day, etc, etc.

Understand that, all I did was use the system in Beyer on Speed. Does not work the best at this track, because of what you stated. At least I did not call it GS.

[jay68802]

One other interesting note. Looking at the speed index and variant, notice that a lot of the turf races at GP were in the 15 to 25 range and the variant for the 7's last race is 4.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by jay68802

One other interesting note. Looking at the speed index and variant, notice that a lot of the turf races at GP were in the 15 to 25 range and the variant for the 7's last race is 4.

As I said...it isn't prudent to rely on the "raw splits" in this game.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one...because we have differing handicapping opinions.

You need to change your machine.

IMO...you are grossly underestimating the task that the speed-type horse faces when it stretches out for the first time on the grass while rising steeply in class

Not if said speed-type horse is in effect repairing its past performances in order to have a future worth racing for.

...especially when it is asked to face horses with similar running styles as its own.

Uncle B's running style is not similar to Chief Exchanger. Chief Exchanger since stretching out, not surprisingly, is a dedicated front runner. Uncle B has maintained a stalker/presser style with a bit of finish.

But, hey...you are entitled to any opinion that you fancy.

Sleep tight.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

If we are talking about the races Uncle B and Chief Exchanger ran on Feb 24, I wouldn't be surprised if you are correct. It's a minor point really, because I would agree with anyone who suggests that Chief Exchanger was the most likely frontrunner. In fact, that is exactly as it turned out, with Chief Exchanger setting the pace and Uncle B pressing.

What is also predictable on paper is that these two horses had a decided pace advantage over the rest of the field as they were facing a host of elderly runners none of whom showed consistent early speed save for one or two instances.

Meanwhile the top two finishers were both reformed sprinters shifting to the turf and stretching out as miler-types--and doing it successfully. In addition, both were in the recent past racing at levels well above this $16K condition unlike the majority of the rest of the field.

In hindsight it's not too surprising that they simply ran the field off its feet.

As Tom Ainslie so wisely stated..."After every race, another system is born".

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

You need to change your machine.

I wonder if YOUR machine works as well BEFORE the race as it does in "hindsight".