The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Ok...I have a question....How does one prove a negative?
Look, you have a perception. That is you believe or have a viewpoint that it is more likely for a longer priced horse to be disqualified than one on which there are shorter odds.
Leave it at that.
Now, if you can present statistical evidence supporting your perception, bravo.
Until you or anyone else does, your view remains just that. Your view.

There are plenty of people on here that can call BS but if they want to, they can do the legwork, why should someone have to cater to the whims of every Tom, Dick and Harry? If those guys want proof the original post is wrong, dig up the proof.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If we the players cared to look out for our interest...then the game would be completely different than it is right now. There have been injustices of all types committed against the players...from unjust disqualifications, to stiffing horses, to past-posting incidents, to ringers being entered in races, to takeout rates being raised to ludicrous levels. The horseplayers bitch and squeal for a little while...but they continue to support this game, as if the injustices never occurred.

Boycott a racetrack for a month just to prove that you are a force to be reckoned with, and THEN see if the game's attitude towards the player doesn't improve in a big way. Because as it stands right now, you can collect all the corroborating evidence that you want in order to prove your point. All that the industry leaders will do if they even bother to see it, is wipe their asses with it.

This is the crux of the matter. As players, we do not have stick to hit the tracks with to improve things. A track could have a half a dozen bogus DQs, three ringers, 35% takeout, and two dozen stiff jobs in a week and still stay in business. Only accusing track management of bias against gays or shooting a pet lion would achieve significant results in the event of a boycott.

Five racing days into the Spa's meet, and 8 inquires and 3 DQs. Lots of comments in the charts about bumping and brushing in which no inquiry occurs or objection is lodged. Now I've been betting races from Australia for close to 17-18 years now, and I can count on ONE HAND the number of inquiries/protests I've seen involving my horses. I think I've been DQ'ed once, and put up on a DQ once. In the last year and half of Hong Kong racing, I can count on two fingers the number of inquiries I've seen, whether on my horse or not. One was for a horse rearing at the start.

Let 'em ride, pay the winners.

[cj]

All races since 2009.

Horses DQed from 1st: 2498
Average Odds: 6.02

Horses elevated to 1st: 2498
Average Odds: 7.06

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by cj

All races since 2009.

Horses DQed from 1st: 2498
Average Odds: 6.02

Horses elevated to 1st: 2498
Average Odds: 7.06

But wouldn't that always be true since shorter priced horses finish ahead of longer prices horses way more often?

I think it would be telling to see the races just where the longer priced horse beat the shorter priced one.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

But wouldn't that always be true since shorter priced horses finish ahead of longer prices horses way more often?

I think it would be telling to see the races just where the longer priced horse beat the shorter priced one.

Well, there is nothing to indicate in the data when there was an objection/inquiry but no change, short of parsing comments. No way I'm going to do that. Anyone has any other suggestions to query I'll be happy to give it a try.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by cj

Well, there is nothing to indicate in the data when there was an objection/inquiry but no change, short of parsing comments. No way I'm going to do that. Anyone has any other suggestions to query I'll be happy to give it a try.

The three possible scenarios are (1) higher-priced horses are DQed in favor of lower-priced ones because CONSPIRACY, and your stats definitely prove that wrong, (2) lower-priced horses are in front of higher-priced horses more often and therefore more likely to be DQed because of that, and that doesn't appear to be true from your stats, (3) higher-priced horses need to foul lower-priced horses to beat them, and if anything that's what your stats show. I'd say 7-1 to 6-1 is too close to even prove that. They mainly show that odds don't matter in disqualifications. Thanks for taking the time to run the queries.

[Stillriledup]

Even if you have a TON of data that shows shorter priced horses dont necessarily get any benefits, it only takes ONE TIME in all those thousands of races for an odds bias to take place. The judges essentially have to go 'undefeated" to prove theres no odds bias. If 99.99999999 percent of the races prove no odds bias but one time there IS an odds bias, that means the odds bias proponents are proven right. No odds bias means 0 times was a lower odds horse given a benefit in an inquiry, whether it was the longer price being disqualified or the favorite benefitting from no bias.

What might be a good query would be to see how many times Pletcher, Baffert and pick out 3 other bigwig trainers and see how their inquiry rates compare to Rudy Rod and 4 other trainers who arent really loved for one reason or another. Can we get a query on specific trainers?

Pletcher would be a great example because hes almost always the shorter priced runner in any inquiry.

[cj]

Originally Posted by castaway01

The three possible scenarios are (1) higher-priced horses are DQed in favor of lower-priced ones because CONSPIRACY, and your stats definitely prove that wrong, (2) lower-priced horses are in front of higher-priced horses more often and therefore more likely to be DQed because of that, and that doesn't appear to be true from your stats, (3) higher-priced horses need to foul lower-priced horses to beat them, and if anything that's what your stats show. I'd say 7-1 to 6-1 is too close to even prove that. They mainly show that odds don't matter in disqualifications. Thanks for taking the time to run the queries.

Here is the last one I'm doing, should be enough to answer most of anyone's questions. I weeded out some races with multiples DQs, dead heats, etc.

Races with DQ from win: 2256

Races lower odds horse finished first and DQed - 1138
Races higher odds horse finished first and DQed - 1118

[cj]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Even if you have a TON of data that shows shorter priced horses dont necessarily get any benefits, it only takes ONE TIME in all those thousands of races for an odds bias to take place. The judges essentially have to go 'undefeated" to prove theres no odds bias. If 99.99999999 percent of the races prove no odds bias but one time there IS an odds bias, that means the odds bias proponents are proven right. No odds bias means 0 times was a lower odds horse given a benefit in an inquiry, whether it was the longer price being disqualified or the favorite benefitting from no bias.

What might be a good query would be to see how many times Pletcher, Baffert and pick out 3 other bigwig trainers and see how their inquiry rates compare to Rudy Rod and 4 other trainers who arent really loved for one reason or another. Can we get a query on specific trainers?

Pletcher would be a great example because hes almost always the shorter priced runner in any inquiry.

This is ridiculous.

[Poindexter]

The problem with a query, is that probably 60 % or higher are fairly clear cut. It is the minority of them that can go either way that matter. If it is a close call and a 14-1 wins and a 2-1 is 2nd, there is a lot better chance that the 14-1 is coming down than if that is reversed. Also is has nothing to do with stewards betting or anything like that it has to do with the fact that if you pull down a 14-1, 1 in 20 fans are upset while 1 in 3 are thrilled. I you pull down a 2-1 shot, 1 in 3 fans are upset. If it is borderline, there will be a tendency to keep the public happy and keep down the controversy. If you are looking to query to find some tendencies, I would focus on how many times a horse over 10-1 is put up while a horse that is 4-1 or less is taken down and vice versa.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

The problem with a query, is that probably 60 % or higher are fairly clear cut. It is the minority of them that can go either way that matter. If it is a close call and a 14-1 wins and a 2-1 is 2nd, there is a lot better chance that the 14-1 is coming down than if that is reversed. Also is has nothing to do with stewards betting or anything like that it has to do with the fact that if you pull down a 14-1, 1 in 20 fans are upset while 1 in 3 are thrilled. I you pull down a 2-1 shot, 1 in 3 fans are upset. If it is borderline, there will be a tendency to keep the public happy and keep down the controversy. If you are looking to query to find some tendencies, I would focus on how many times a horse over 10-1 is put up while a horse that is 4-1 or less is taken down and vice versa.

That is a big number of races in my query and the higher odds horses were put up more often than the lower odds horses. What I posted directly contradicts what you are saying above.

[Poindexter]

Originally Posted by cj

That is a big number of races in my query and the higher odds horses were put up more often than the lower odds horses. What I posted directly contradicts what you are saying above.

Maybe, maybe not. I would query how many races are won by a 4-1 or less with a 2nd place finisher being 10-1 plus and query how many races are vice versa.
So lets say there is a 4-1 ratio of the first set of races to the 2nd set of races, Because of that there needs to be about a 4-1 ratio of takedowns of the longer priced horses. If is is only a 3-2 ratio then it would support my viewpoint, not contradict it.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Poindexter

Maybe, maybe not. I would query how many races are won by a 4-1 or less with a 2nd place finisher being 10-1 plus and query how many races are vice versa.
So lets say there is a 4-1 ratio of the first set of races to the 2nd set of races, Because of that there needs to be about a 4-1 ratio of takedowns of the longer priced horses. If is is only a 3-2 ratio then it would support my viewpoint, not contradict it.

I just did higher price / lower price. I could add a spread between them as you suggest, but I've done enough already. I have enough experience with queries to know the chances what I posted would change much with a new parameter (bigger gap between odds) are very low.

There is no field in any database that addresses inquiries / objections that did not result in a change. Sometimes that info finds the text notes, sometimes not. It would be a nightmare trying to parse that information accurately.

[thespaah]

Sar 9th.......Another extra look by the Stewards.....Looks like the comes out twice.

[cj]

Here we go again...clear herding, who knows what the stewards will do...LOL, DQ.