W O W ! ! ! !

[LottaKash]

I love this thread...All of it !....

Big Memory-lane thing for me...

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Well remember, we only get to this point by pretending her other Classic didn't happen.

True. Who could really forget Zenyatta defeating the Champion Turf Horse and a European import in her otherworldly main track BC Classic win?

Those two certainly validated the form, too, with unplaced efforts each in two consecutive Dubai World Cups on synthetics.

But no, it will likely be a long time before another mare wins or finishes second in the BC Classic. Over time, you will be forced to revise your opinion.

Only if they increase the purse of the BC Distaff.

[rsetup]

Originally Posted by cj

If you haven't figured it out yet, you are missing that the delta doesn't help you compare different races on the same card as well as total distance traveled does. In isolation, it doesn't matter which you use for a single race. For a group of races, the total distance traveled for each horse is very useful. The delta doesn't help much. Make sense?

It doesn't.

The delta is just a calculation from TRAKUS that is based on total distance traveled. The calculation is trivial. It's merely a comparison of the distance covered by the winner and each of the other horses in the race. I'm hard pressed to understand why this couldn't also be done for a group of races.

Let's do one:

DWC DAY

Race 2 2000m on the dirt. Distance covered by the winner: 2035 meters

Rac 9 DWC 2000m on the dirt. Distance covered by the winner: 2039 meters.


DELTA race 1 to race 9:

Let's do the math:

2035 - 2039 = - 4 meters

Make sense?

p.s. in a thread where the point being advanced by the majority is that Arrogate not only was compromised by the bad start but had an extremely wide trip, one would think that a comparison of his total distance covered to that of the others in the race, in other worlds DELTA for the race in question, would be the way to advance the argument.

[cj]

Originally Posted by rsetup

It doesn't.

The delta is just a calculation from TRAKUS that is based on total distance traveled. The calculation is trivial. It's merely a comparison of the distance covered by the winner and each of the other horses in the race. I'm hard pressed to understand why this couldn't also be done for a group of races.

Let's do one:

DWC DAY

Race 2 2000m on the dirt. Distance covered by the winner: 2035 meters

Rac 9 DWC 2000m on the dirt. Distance covered by the winner: 2039 meters.


DELTA race 1 to race 9:

Let's do the math:

2035 - 2039 = - 4 meters

Make sense?

p.s. in a thread where the point being advanced by the majority is that Arrogate not only was compromised by the bad start but had an extremely wide trip, one would think that a comparison of his total distance covered to that of the others in the race, in other worlds DELTA for the race in question, would be the way to advance the argument.

I know exactly what the delta is, sorry you felt you had to type 2000 words to explain it without bothering to try figuring out what I meant. Have a nice day.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by LottaKash

I love this thread...All of it !....

Big Memory-lane thing for me...

I hate it! We have heard this tiredness before. I think great players that are also great fans and great people enjoy the moment at hand instead of degenerating into this perpetuality!

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

I hate it! We have heard this tiredness before. I think great players that are also great fans and great people enjoy the moment at hand instead of degenerating into this perpetuality!

Really, hate it?....Seems a bit extreme to me at least...Stale maybe..

I love reminiscing the great ones that I have seen, rooted for, and won or lost on before.... At so many wonderful and varied racetracks..

Heck, this is a horse racing place, so what better way to celebrate all the great horses and all thosegreat horse-races, showdowns, and champions in a romp...

There is no ONE BEST of all time...Only Legends and debate of such.....It defines our place in time when talking about these great ones..

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by LottaKash

Really, hate it?....Seems a bit extreme to me at least...Stale maybe..

I love reminiscing the great ones that I have seen, rooted for, and won or lost on before.... At so many wonderful and varied racetracks..

Heck, this is a horse racing place, so what better way to celebrate all the great horses and all thosegreat horse-races, showdowns, and champions in a romp...

There is no ONE BEST of all time...Only Legends and debate of such.....It defines our place in time when talking about these great ones..

The horses are great. This is not a debate. This is a condemnation of never accepting greatness or embracing the moment at hand. Let's be clear!

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

The horses are great. This is not a debate. This is a condemnation of never accepting greatness or embracing the moment at hand. Let's be clear!

Maybe so Cincy, but I still enjoy the banter all the same...

As well as your thoughtful, insightful and candid posts...

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by LottaKash

Maybe so Cincy, but I still enjoy the banter all the same...

As well as your thoughtful, insightful and candid posts...

OK then!

YouTube

[Hoops McCann]

Arrogreat

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

Well no kidding Captain Obvious. I think you said the same thing I did with a lot more words.

What I was talking about doesn't have to involve speed figures. Horses from different races on the same day often race against each other on subsequent days. The Godolphin Mile and World Cup would be a good example, or the Sprint and the Mile. What if a comparative handicapper wants to compare horses from those races? The delta wouldn't help much, but the total ground loss would.

I think you missed my point.

If you are a comparative handicapper, you pretty much never care how far the horses ran relative to the actual distance of the race (unless it's so extreme some horses are not suited to the actual distance run). You only care how far they ran relative to the other horses in their own race.

When you are done with a full analysis within a single race as I loosely described it in my previous post, you know who is better than whom by how much in that single race.

You would go through the same process for the Godolpin Mile.

The next step would be to differentiate between the quality of multiple races.

In your example, you would look at the makeup of the Godolphin Mile vs. the makeup of the World Cup and determine which race had more quality and by how much.

The final question would be something like this.

Based on the respective quality of these 2 races, was a 2nd in the Godophin Mile given that horse's trip better than a 3rd in the World Cup given that horse's trip?

At no time do I care if everyone in one of the races ran in the 8-9 path and everyone in another race all hugged the rail. Everything is relative to the other horses inside the same race and the quality of those races.

[classhandicapper]

I should add, I am not saying there is a right way or better way. I am just saying that if you are times based (as you are) you need to be concerned with how far each horse actually ran. When you are comparing horses within the same race and to horses in other races in a non time based way, you need only be interested in the deltas and quality of the horses in each race .

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I should add, I am not saying there is a right way or better way. I am just saying that if you are times based (as you are) you need to be concerned with how far each horse actually ran. When you are comparing horses within the same race and to horses in other races in a non time based way, you need only be interested in the deltas and quality of the horses in each race .

Seems like an awful lot of work the clock handles pretty easily. Couldn't you do all that and use time too? Seems silly to ignore such an important piece of info to me.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

Seems like an awful lot of work the clock handles pretty easily. Couldn't you do all that and use time too? Seems silly to ignore such an important piece of info to me.

It's a ton of work. To the extent I can automate it I have (and continue improving on that process). But I still spend more time buried in charts, replays & the PPs of the horses that were in past races than anything else.

I don't disregard time as a factor, but I try to avoid it.

What I do works as well or better than time in stakes races. When I try to combine it with time, it improves the quality of my analysis a bit, but it hurts the prices because everyone else has figures and no one else has what I have.

Time becomes more significant to me in races where I an unsure of the quality of the horses, which is usually lightly raced horses.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It's a ton of work. To the extent I can automate it I have (and continue improving on that process). But I still spend more time buried in charts, replays & the PPs of the horses that were in past races than anything else.

I don't disregard time as a factor, but I try to avoid it.

What I do works as well or better than time in stakes races. When I try to combine it with time, it improves the quality of my analysis a bit, but it hurts the prices because everyone else has figures and no one else has what I have.

Time becomes more significant to me in races where I an unsure of the quality of the horses, which is usually lightly raced horses.

Fair enough. I think there was too much time being spent on the delta, like it was some hidden gem. It is the same exact thing as total just expressed a different way.

As for the fat man's post, he compared two races at the same distance. My examples clearly mentioned races at different distances. Is running 20 extra meters at 1600m the same as running 20 extra meters at 2000m? Of course not, that is the point I was trying to make.