Any horse who breaks through gate prior to start should be scratched

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

What a great thread. A fabulous demonstration on how, in general, horse race handicappers are challenged to just apply common sense to a particular question. Just good old common sense will tell you that a horse breaking through the gate is not favorable, whether the horse is 1/5 or 50/1. When I bet on a horse, I just want everything to go smooth. Unnecessary drama of any kind is a reason to put your money back in your pocket. Anybody that has won on a horse that broke through the gate has said to themselves, "Whew, dodged a bullet there."

One has to be very careful when using what they call "common sense". It used to be common sense that the Earth was flat and that the sun went around the Earth. It used to be common sense that boxers abstained from sex for months before a fight or should not swallow water between rounds. that's why we developed science and research methods to debunk a lot of what passes for common sense.
So that since common sense says that horses that break through the gate are at a disadvantage you must think that the study done by the poster here to prove that hypothesis is a waste of time including all this discussion. Why would you call this fabulous if we are wasting time on this "scientific stuff" when we have good ol common sense? Why do any studies and who needs scientific research when we have "common sense"
If by common sense one means rational thinking, there is nothing less common than common sense.

By the way, when you dodge a bullet it means that the bullet missed and you are unharmed. The bullet that as dodged was the horse running off and being scratched or even injured. If not you dodged it and were free to win the race with no ill effect from breaking through.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

One has to be very careful when using what they call "common sense". It used to be common sense that the Earth was flat and that the sun went around the Earth. It used to be common sense that boxers abstained from sex for months before a fight or should not swallow water between rounds. that's why we developed science and research methods to debunk a lot of what passes for common sense.
So that since common sense says that horses that break through the gate are at a disadvantage you must think that the study done by the poster here to prove that hypothesis is a waste of time including all this discussion. Why would you call this fabulous if we are wasting time on this "scientific stuff" when we have good ol common sense? Why do any studies and who needs scientific research when we have "common sense"
If by common sense one means rational thinking, there is nothing less common than common sense.

By the way, when you dodge a bullet it means that the bullet missed and you are unharmed. The bullet that as dodged was the horse running off and being scratched or even injured. If not you dodged it and were free to win the race with no ill effect from breaking through.

Just to show an example of the failure of common sense in racing. It used to common sense that closers that made big stretch gains, especially if they were going up in distance, were good bets. Quirin's study showed that, in fact, the big stretch gain was the weakest of all the form factors in both Impact Value and R.O.I. and a big money burner. So much for "common sense".

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Just to show an example of the failure of common sense in racing. It used to common sense that closers that made big stretch gains, especially if they were going up in distance, were good bets. Quirin's study showed that, in fact, the big stretch gain was the weakest of all the form factors in both Impact Value and R.O.I. and a big money burner. So much for "common sense".

I've never been a handicapping book guy. Not saying they don't have merit. I expect they do.

I remember reading a stat, heck it's got to be 40 years ago, that said 78% percent of horses that win sprint races in North America are never worse than 3rd at any point in the race.

Simplistic to be sure. However, just having it in the back of my mind assuredly has prevented me from a lot of bad plays and saved me $$millions over the years.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

I've never been a handicapping book guy. Not saying they don't have merit. I expect they do.

I remember reading a stat, heck it's got to be 40 years ago, that said 78% percent of horses that win sprint races in North America are never worse than 3rd at any point in the race.

Simplistic to be sure. However, just having it in the back of my mind assuredly has prevented me from a lot of bad plays and saved me $$millions over the years.

There is some basis for this and in some ways it's a self fulfilling prophecy. The better horses tend to be put into contention early and better horses tend to win more races. Of course it's more complicated then that and there are too many other variables at play for it to be a long term winning system.
Quirin did an interesting experiment where he found that if you could bet a race at the first call, a bet on the leader would yield a a profitable R.O.I. The trick, of course, is being able to accurately predict the early leader in every race. Of course you can't do that unless your betting in an x-change but I bet the other bettors would get wise to that and your payoffs would be too small to show a profit, Interesting the angles one can find based on different variables if one knows how to identify the winner using the right studies.
In Winning at the Races (best handicapping book ever written) he does a multiple regression computer study where he isolates the winning and most profitable features and calculates how to combine them by weighing them in order of effectiveness and coming up with the most profitable system. He even gives it a trial and it works. Very impressive since he used speed figures as one of his variables and at the time had to use the inaccurate DRF figures and variant. Imagine what he could with today's Beyers or Timeforms. Maybe someone will do it someday.

.

[ultracapper]

Just for accuracy sake, the helio-centric solar system has been something man has been aware of for over 5 millennia. The terra-centric (sun circles the earth) was a successful propaganda effort put forth during the early medieval period to support the European church's assertions that man was the center of everything and deserving of the creator's special attention.

There is no proof that any other human society outside of the Mediterranean regions ever believed the sun circled the earth. The sun circling the earth wasn't considered common sense, it was medieval Mediterranean arrogance and manipulation.

Having said that, the poster's point is taken.

[Tom]

Common sense is for people who can't afford a database.

[Thomas Roulston]

Aren't fields short enough already?

If we did this they would be shorter still.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

Just for accuracy sake, the helio-centric solar system has been something man has been aware of for over 5 millennia. The terra-centric (sun circles the earth) was a successful propaganda effort put forth during the early medieval period to support the European church's assertions that man was the center of everything and deserving of the creator's special attention.

There is no proof that any other human society outside of the Mediterranean regions ever believed the sun circled the earth. The sun circling the earth wasn't considered common sense, it was medieval Mediterranean arrogance and manipulation.

Having said that, the poster's point is taken.

I can't speak for sure of the Asian world but at least in the West without the benefit of modern science it would have seemed common sense to primitive and ancient man to think the the Sun orbits the Earth long before the Medieval Church and it's ignorant dogma, the ancient Greeks thought the Sun was a fiery chariot driven across the sky by Apollo. It wasn't until Copernicus in the Renaissance that the idea of a helio-centric solar system come about. You are correct that the Medieval Church propagated the idea of a geocentric one to support its' dogma that God had put man at the center of the Universe but they were merely using an already established commonsensical belief.

Appreciate the thoughtful post, though.

[Thomas Roulston]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

Just for accuracy sake, the helio-centric solar system has been something man has been aware of for over 5 millennia. The terra-centric (sun circles the earth) was a successful propaganda effort put forth during the early medieval period to support the European church's assertions that man was the center of everything and deserving of the creator's special attention.

There is no proof that any other human society outside of the Mediterranean regions ever believed the sun circled the earth. The sun circling the earth wasn't considered common sense, it was medieval Mediterranean arrogance and manipulation.

Having said that, the poster's point is taken.

The correct term is "geocentric" - not "terracentric."

[bobphilo]

In 10th at Woodbine Pink Loyd broke through dragged rider, ran off and had to be chased and caught by outrider yet they let it run.Finished 5th.

In the chart it only said "broke through and lost rider". Nothing about him running off. Makes you wonder how reliable charts are in reporting breakthroughs for studies. This should not count as just a breakthrough.

[AskinHaskin]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

In 10th at Woodbine Pink Loyd broke through dragged rider, ran off and had to be chased and caught by outrider yet they let it run.Finished 5th.

In the chart it only said "broke through and lost rider". Nothing about him running off. Makes you wonder how reliable charts are in reporting breakthroughs for studies. This should not count as just a breakthrough.

They only bothered with all of that because he was sure to be the “favorite”, as a first step toward curing the faulty data in the study cited above.

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by Tom

Common sense is for people who can't afford a database.

Many can afford one.


Few will be able to use it well.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

In 10th at Woodbine Pink Loyd broke through dragged rider, ran off and had to be chased and caught by outrider yet they let it run.Finished 5th.

In the chart it only said "broke through and lost rider". Nothing about him running off. Makes you wonder how reliable charts are in reporting breakthroughs for studies. This should not count as just a breakthrough.

He only ran a few yards before they caught him. Would have had to refund a TON of $$$ if he was scratched. I'd have been frantically trying to cancel and would have been pissed he ran. But I do understand not scratching.

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

Twitter

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

In 10th at Woodbine Pink Loyd broke through dragged rider, ran off and had to be chased and caught by outrider yet they let it run.Finished 5th.

In the chart it only said "broke through and lost rider". Nothing about him running off. Makes you wonder how reliable charts are in reporting breakthroughs for studies. This should not count as just a breakthrough.

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

https://twitter.com/BillFinley3/stat...88330979573762

https://twitter.com/BillFinley3/stat...88513855434752

Da Silva reportedly some soreness today, but fans will be relieved to hear that Pink Lloyd has been emptying his feed tub, and is 'comfortably numb' this Monday morning.

There may be some rebellion going forward regarding any attempt to enforce Pink Lloyd to attend gate-schooling as "We don't need no gate-education!" has been stamped into the hay.


On a serious note, I hope you guys cancelled your win wagers and hedged your lead-in-multis (add gate incidents to other rare angles such as 'significant negative physicality observations' to the list of incomplete info involved in multi-race wagers) (and backed up/ hedged your multis ->) with a dutch and exacta-box of the other 3 win contenders. As much as we'd love to see our money 'protected', these rare chances to adapt are one angle that is still afforded the semi-serious horseplayer. - I didn't play the race live and can't comment on whether the opportunity to cancel, and/or wager was actually afforded the player during the 10th race gate incident. I have capitalized on some in the past, and I have also watched helplessly during such incidents that happened to occur as the gate crew had 'closed' betting, where cancelling and re-wagering was not made available.