Does Accelerate now win HOY over Justify?

[classhandicapper]

There's one legitimate argument against Justify.

His figures weren't that great and the crop was kind of weak. So maybe his accomplishments weren't up to the standard we expect of Triple Crown winners.

The counter to that one could say, it depends whose figures you are using, whether they are pace adjusted, and whether you think the industry move towards more lightly raced horses competing in the Triple Crown has permanently changed the kinds of figures we are going to see from 3yos going 10F-12F in the spring and summer.

You can also just as easily counter that Accelerates amazing accomplishments were a product of one of the worst groups of older horses we've had in years and his figures reflect fully developed very experienced horses at route distances.

Notice in both cases I used the word "accomplishments".

If we just want to select the best horse that raced in 2018, that would EASILY be Gun Runner who won the Pegasus in 2018.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

There's one legitimate argument against Justify.

Exactly who are you to make these absurd statements?

This is as ridiculous as you opining on and on about how to put together Pick-6s when you rarely, if ever, have played them.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Exactly who are you to make these absurd statements?

This is as ridiculous as you opining on and on about how to put together Pick-6s when you rarely, if ever, have played them.

I've actually studied a ton of data on our shared passion and looked at the math on some of these other things. My opinions are usually based on math and data. Conventional wisdom (and books) are often wrong.

I suspect that had American Pharoah not won the Triple Crown a few years ago we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Both horses had great accomplishments and either would be a fine choice in any year. But I have yet to hear a good case for suddenly discounting an accomplishment like the Triple Crown that doesn't involve the fact that the 3yo crop was weak and/or that his figures were slow (or we just had one). I already heard some of what Andy Beyer had to say on the subject. I think there are good counters to that thinking.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I've actually studied a ton of data on our shared passion and looked at the math on some of these other things. My opinions are usually based on math and data. Conventional wisdom (and books) are often wrong.

I suspect that had American Pharoah not won the Triple Crown a few years ago we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Both horses had great accomplishments and either would be a fine choice in any year. But I have yet to hear a good case for suddenly discounting an accomplishment like the Triple Crown that doesn't involve the fact that the 3yo crop was weak and/or that his figures were slow (or we just had one). I already heard some of what Andy Beyer had to say on the subject. I think there are good counters to that thinking.

I appreciate you keeping it relatively short for my deficient attention span, but that doesn't answer my rhetorical question.

Math and data are great. So are real life situations, and unless you have actually walked the walk, the academics don't really work. Making real decisions, while using real money, has no substitute, at least in this game. You say "books are often wrong" yet what you spew is, at best, effectively a book. Given you don't seem to believe enough in your own academic research to put your own money at risk on your findings, speaks volumes.


As for the rest, there are plenty of arguments, whether you ( or I ) agree with them, and suggesting there is only one takes a special kind of arrogance. Maybe you only see one, but as much as I hate to break it to you, the horse racing discussion, on any topic, doesn't begin and end with you ( or any of us ).

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I appreciate you keeping it relatively short for my deficient attention span, but that doesn't answer my rhetorical question.

Math and data are great. So are real life situations, and unless you have actually walked the walk, the academics don't really work. Making real decisions, while using real money, has no substitute, at least in this game. You say "books are often wrong" yet what you spew is, at best, effectively a book. Given you don't seem to believe enough in your own academic research to put your own money at risk on your findings, speaks volumes.


As for the rest, there are plenty of arguments, whether you ( or I ) agree with them, and suggesting there is only one takes a special kind of arrogance. Maybe you only see one, but as much as I hate to break it to you, the horse racing discussion, on any topic, doesn't begin and end with you ( or any of us ).

I've been playing this game with real money for as long as you have. I don't claim to be some high roller, but when I bet I put in a good amount. I'm not some $2 bettor.

Did you ever think the reason I rarely play Pick-6s is because I've looked at the data and math and decided there were better ways for me to manage my money?

I didn't mean for my post to reflect arrogance, though I can see how it did. I actually get an Eclipse vote. I went back and forth on it for a few weeks before voting Justify.

But the one thing I feel strongly about is that "figures" are problematical in these awards. It does depend on whose figures you are looking at, whether they are adjusted for anything like trip, pace etc.. Almost every time I hear someone make the case for Accelerate they start talking about weak 3yos and slow figures. It depends on whose figures you are looking at. Plus, the same thing can be said about the older horses.

[dilanesp]

One observation I would make about pick 6's is they are going to have a lot more variance than win betting does, and as a result you are going to need to play a TON of pick 6's before your results are statistically significant.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

One observation I would make about pick 6's is they are going to have a lot more variance than win betting does, and as a result you are going to need to play a TON of pick 6's before your results are statistically significant.

Not to change the subject, but you are also often forced into several races where you bring nothing of value to the table (unless you want to pretend you understand every race type and race equally well).

Why not just focus on the races and sequences where you actually have value oriented opinions?

In most cases people do it because they want to make a score and not because they have some well thought out reason to think the Pick 6 pool offers them the best value on that day.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I've been playing this game with real money for as long as you have. I don't claim to be some high roller, but when I bet I put in a good amount. I'm not some $2 bettor.

Did you ever think the reason I rarely play Pick-6s is because I've looked at the data and math and decided there were better ways for me to manage my money?

I didn't mean for my post to reflect arrogance, though I can see how it did. I actually get an Eclipse vote. I went back and forth on it for a few weeks before voting Justify.

But the one thing I feel strongly about is that "figures" are problematical in these awards. It does depend on whose figures you are looking at, whether they are adjusted for anything like trip, pace etc.. Almost every time I hear someone make the case for Accelerate they start talking about weak 3yos and slow figures. It depends on whose figures you are looking at. Plus, the same thing can be said about the older horses.

I personally don't even really consider figures much when I vote. I look at accomplishments. Figures are a betting tool in my opinion, not one that should decide year end awards.

[Tom]

There's one legitimate argument against Justify.

His figures weren't that great and the crop was kind of weak. So maybe his accomplishments weren't up to the standard we expect of Triple Crown winners.

What standard do we have?
Only two TC winners HAVE publically available Beyers - American Pharoah and Justify.

AP - 105 102 105 avg 104
Just- 103 97 100 avg 100

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Not to change the subject, but you are also often forced into several races where you bring nothing of value to the table (unless you want to pretend you understand every race type and race equally well).

Why not just focus on the races and sequences where you actually have value oriented opinions?

In most cases people do it because they want to make a score and not because they have some well thought out reason to think the Pick 6 pool offers them the best value on that day.

There was a very good Beyer piece in the Washington Post in the 1990's about the twin trifecta that made that point- it wasn't rational to play the bet if you had no handicapping edge in the races, even if there was a big carryover. Of course nobody heeds that advice.

[jimmyb]

Originally Posted by Tom

What standard do we have?
Only two TC winners HAVE publically available Beyers - American Pharoah and Justify.

AP - 105 102 105 avg 104
Just- 103 97 100 avg 100

A list of Preakness Beyers dating 2014 back to 1991


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.3c7d53b24db7

[Tom]

I was only using TC winners.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I've been playing this game with real money for as long as you have. I don't claim to be some high roller, but when I bet I put in a good amount. I'm not some $2 bettor.

Did you ever think the reason I rarely play Pick-6s is because I've looked at the data and math and decided there were better ways for me to manage my money?

I didn't mean for my post to reflect arrogance, though I can see how it did. I actually get an Eclipse vote. I went back and forth on it for a few weeks before voting Justify.

But the one thing I feel strongly about is that "figures" are problematical in these awards. It does depend on whose figures you are looking at, whether they are adjusted for anything like trip, pace etc.. Almost every time I hear someone make the case for Accelerate they start talking about weak 3yos and slow figures. It depends on whose figures you are looking at. Plus, the same thing can be said about the older horses.

The fact that basically every DRF employee has a vote shows it's a broken system. Saying there is only one argument reflects arrogance, whether or not you meant it that way. Perhaps "I only see one argument" was what you meant?

It's fine that you don't play the Pick-6. However, given that, it's not fine that you think you can tell others how to play it.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Tom

I was only using TC winners.

If you are familiar with the long term record for figures in Triple Crown races, when you see a 97 for the Preakness your thinking is going to be impacted somewhat whether you realize it or not.

But not everyone had it that slow and not everyone is going to adjust their thinking by the same amount (if at all) based on his duel with Good Magic.

In the modern era, 1936-present, every Triple Crown winner got the award.

Slew got it over Forego
Affirmed got it over Slew

Does anyone think this would be a tight race if American Pharoah didn't just win it?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it would barely be a discussion even from those that think Accelerate was a better horse.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by the little guy

The fact that basically every DRF employee has a vote shows it's a broken system. Saying there is only one argument reflects arrogance, whether or not you meant it that way. Perhaps "I only see one argument" was what you meant?

It's fine that you don't play the Pick-6. However, given that, it's not fine that you think you can tell others how to play it.

1. Not everyone has a vote and everyone I know that has a vote has been playing horses for years and takes it seriously. I had to lobby for a vote and no one takes it more seriously than I do.

2. What I meant was the arguments I am seeing among the pro Accelerate people have to do with the weakness of his figures and the crop. I'm not buying that argument given the older crop.

3. That thread is not just about Pick-6s. Its about horizontals and the ABC system. I was talking about the problems with the way people generally use the ABC system (they are too probability oriented). Later I was asked specifically about Pick 6s because there are different concerns. I didn't tell anyone else how to play. I explained how I would play them. I would use the same math. If I had concerns about bankroll and volatility because of that approach, I would not start adding in what I thought were bad value combinations just to reduce volatility and save bankroll. It's too damn hard to win money at this game to do that. I would not be in that pool (and am not).