Trakus Delta - When does it get your attention?

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by raybo

I'm no expert on anything, so take this as you like.

As many of the threads like this one go, there are a variety of talking points, and most of those points are necessarily biased towards their authors' education and experience, their chosen methods, and subject to their innate limitations.

I am of the firm belief that horse race handicapping and wagering can be a successful endeavor, regardless of a player's education and experience, their chosen methods and their innate limitations.

I am, therefore, of the firm belief that there is no one way to be successful in horse race handicapping and wagering. Thinking there is, is a form of insanity, if there ever was one. That being said, attempting to argue, or demean, someone for their chosen methods, without having the necessary education and experience in those methods, could also be considered a form of insanity, or at least a perverse form of self induced entertainment.

Particular to this thread, although it is certainly not restricted to this thread, there are several members here who immediately jump into any thread in which Cratos posts, with the intense desire to discredit his methods, mainly his advanced usage of physics. While I can see why some tire of his repeated postulations on the subject of his methodologies, what tires me even more is the postings by others who seem adamant of arguing and demeaning him. Of course, Cratos doesn't need me to take up for him, he is certainly capable of diverting any such negative attempts successfully, himself. But, I would be the last one to attempt to argue his specific knowledge and methods. I know just about enough physics to recognize the value in such an approach.

Carry on!

The problem here is that your first point contradicts your second. You're right that Cratos does have people who jump in and criticize his "methods" (though I don't think he ever actually gives any methods), but that's because Cratos himself doesn't accept your original point. His main arguments in every thread are "You can't win that way, you simple-minded fool" or "Trakus can't be wrong, you simple-minded fool". So, he gives no respect (which is what Grits has been saying, correctly) and he doesn't get any respect in return.

[cj]

Originally Posted by raybo

Particular to this thread, although it is certainly not restricted to this thread, there are several members here who immediately jump into any thread in which Cratos posts, with the intense desire to discredit his methods, mainly his advanced usage of physics.

I can only speak for myself, but I think you have it backwards. I personally have never discredited his methods. How could I? I don't even know what they are. All I do is defend mine and others against his belittling statements.

As for jumping into threads, it is Cratos that does that, just as he did in this one. Surely you can see that was the case here, right?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by cj

I can only speak for myself, but I think you have it backwards. I personally have never discredited his methods. How could I? I don't even know what they are. All I do is defend mine and others against his belittling statements.

...

I really can't fathom how this is seen any other way. I was eager to thank him in another thread for at least demonstrating to some degree how he applies it to the Trakus data. I find the underlying premise of his thinking at least mildly, if not very interesting in that it represents an alternative way. That is, in my opinion, the holy grail. Finding an alternative way to what the masses use to all arrive at similar conclusions.

The problem, for me at least, is exactly what the last few posts touch on. It always comes down to the same thing: He has the winning formula. And rather than impart the wisdom that he apparently has and uses to diminish the methods of others, he merely uses it as throwaway 'knowledge' and then then when pressed (usually after reminding everyone that their interpretation of everything from speed to velocity to ground loss is utterly flawed), merely challenges the intellectual prowess of the person making the challenge for not immediately recognizing the value. All this while never, or at best rarely, making even a mild effort to make the case. Just adamantly insisting that the trial is over and if only we had law degrees we'd understand that the verdict is self-evident.

In high school long ago, when we learned the rudimentary facets of some of these principles, there would always be at least one person to frustratingly ask "but when will we ever use this in real life?". The teacher would give you an example and you might be inclined to say "yeah, okay" and crack a book and be enlightened. The one that told you "well someday you can stand here like me and tell other students that that's just the way that it is"... that's the teacher that seemed to get off on failing his students.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by cj

I can only speak for myself, but I think you have it backwards. I personally have never discredited his methods. How could I? I don't even know what they are. All I do is defend mine and others against his belittling statements.

As for jumping into threads, it is Cratos that does that, just as he did in this one. Surely you can see that was the case here, right?

Sorry CJ, but he entered the thread with the following post:

The strength of the Trakus data for me and my associates is using the data for the construction of the aggregate race curve (run-up to 1-1/2M) at NYRA and this race curve has 4 bars for the comparative measurement of any individual horse’s performance; it is a Godsend.

Yes, turf and dirt performances are separated with their own aggregate race curves.

[cj]

Originally Posted by raybo

Sorry CJ, but he entered the thread with the following post:

Yes, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic. And when this was pointed out he then pretty much said the initial post and the replies were useless with his "nothing" answer.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by castaway01

The problem here is that your first point contradicts your second. You're right that Cratos does have people who jump in and criticize his "methods" (though I don't think he ever actually gives any methods), but that's because Cratos himself doesn't accept your original point. His main arguments in every thread are "You can't win that way, you simple-minded fool" or "Trakus can't be wrong, you simple-minded fool". So, he gives no respect (which is what Grits has been saying, correctly) and he doesn't get any respect in return.

Link a post from Cratos where he states that his way is the only way to be successful in horse racing. Yes, he does post statements about physics that firmly point to his belief that Physics is physics, meaning that the various formulas and their relationships are distinct, and if you're going to use them as such then you must use them correctly. I find nothing wrong in that. He's corrected me, regarding my rather elementary understanding of physics, many times, and, of course, has always been right.

He doesn't (and need not) "give any methods". However, he has many times posted physics related formulas and relationships, and how they define the physical nature of racing. I would venture to say that anytime someone posts something physics related, and is not completely correct, Cratos will most certainly post a rebuttal, and will probably be right.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by cj

Yes, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic. And when this was pointed out he then pretty much said the initial post and the replies were useless with his "nothing" answer.

I thought that post was directly related to the thread. Of course, that's just my opinion, we all have them you know.

[cj]

Originally Posted by raybo

I thought that post was directly related to the thread. Of course, that's just my opinion, we all have them you know.

I'm all ears...what did it have to do with the specific delta field that the thread starter asked about? How did separate aggregate curves for turf and dirt races fit in?

[Zydeco]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

I was hoping to elicit a complaint that I used the wrong formula for the wrong sort of resistance and take the heat off of CJ. Figured it worked on many levels.

it did work on many levels...I am

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by raybo

Link a post from Cratos where he states that his way is the only way to be successful in horse racing. ...

Come on now. Anytime there's a discussion of - in particular using speed figures derived from timing at points of call - he's all too eager to discredit the practice entirely as futile and when it is argued as not futile based on result, then it is flawed. That it essentially is smoke and mirrors because relies on too many faulty variables and not enough actual scientific principles that are the root cause of what we interpret as the effect.

That is, in and of itself, an incredibly provocative - in a good way - statement and train of logic. It is stimulative. But in his case it almost always merely suggestive.

He doesn't (and need not) "give any methods". ...

No one needs the key to the quarter pole. But if you are going to routinely interject into a topic and effectively go to lengths to discredit all the methodology presented by those engaging in discussion - and then as a kicker posture that you're part of a think tank or betting group or whatever that does exceptionally well in small, focused samples applying a different methodology - I do think that it is somewhat incumbent upon you to present with clarity something more than basic relationships between forces present in the race. And unfortunately, all too often when asked how merely stating the way in which things relate to one another or the formula that is used to arrive at a root principle actually applies in the context of the discussion at hand - he turns heel immediately and throws out replies that do not answer that question, but rather pose a new question that all too often is nothing more than what can only be interpreted as an insult to the questioner's intelligence or academic understanding of what he's preaching.

I've tried, man, I've tried. But in the years of reading essentially the same thing over and over, I'm not any closer to even wanting to understand it and am reasonably convinced that Cratos is most certainly not the person that is ever going to compel me to get it. I learn the same formulas that I learned in physics decades ago. But little in the way of application and why it actually is that this application is superior to the application that others use, something that pervades nearly every instance of his impending wisdom. Others can, in fact, not divulge the entirety of their methods while still illustrating the principles of the methods in such a way that it does dangle a carrot that I'd like to nibble on for myself.

This is what weights on a guy. For me anyway. I don't even care if it kind of works, works great, or is complete nonsense and doesn't work in a real application at all. I just want something to make me believe that the entire key to understanding what is routinely imparted into the middle of conversations actually does have a function in that context and not that I'm just too ignorant or uneducated to possibly not see it for myself. If that's all he's going to bring to the table, then why sit at the table at all? Unfortunately, the answer to that routinely comes across as very simply, one-upmanship and condescension.

Perhaps I've just heard it too many times and am now too jaded, but don't think that I haven't tried. In fact, if there is actually someone that reads Cratos and can show me the light on what he's been cryptically alluding to for years, I'd love to hear about it. I really, really would. Preferably without questioning my credentials every time I, or someone else, pushes back and challenges what we are being told. And preferably without trivializing the methods of others and then getting butthurt about having your own, far less generally accepted in this context, methods trivialized.

[cj]

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by castaway01

The issue, Grits, is that Trifecta Mike is one of the few people Cratos respects. He doesn't respect us (he thinks we're idiots, though he'd recast that in some pseudo-scientific malarkey about "uneducated masses" and physics) so he talks to us like we're children. I appreciate your efforts, but it's unlikely he'll suddenly start talking to like people he respects. As to the larger point of whether someone who spent a month in the hospital, most of it in a coma, has as his goal talking down to strangers on a horse racing forum....well, a psychiatrist would have a better chance with that one, and my degree is still in the mail,.

Just for the record, I disrespect no poster on this forum; do I fervently disagree with some postulations in some posts and you get an astounding yes.

Yes, I had a lot of respect for “TrifectaMike’s” posts, but that didn’t mean I contrasted his acumen with other posters; it just meant that I enjoyed his posts.

If I were to be bias, the posters, “Magistri Ludi” and “Traynor” would at the top of my list based on the informative content generally in their posts.

I don't get the point you made in the highlighted text, but I am sure it has a salient negative meaning.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Come on now. Anytime there's a discussion of - in particular using speed figures derived from timing at points of call - he's all too eager to discredit the practice entirely as futile and when it is argued as not futile based on result, then it is flawed. That it essentially is smoke and mirrors because relies on too many faulty variables and not enough actual scientific principles that are the root cause of what we interpret as the effect. ...

In fact, if there is actually someone that reads Cratos and can show me the light on what he's been cryptically alluding to for years, I'd love to hear about it. I really, really would. Preferably without questioning my credentials every time I, or someone else, pushes back and challenges what we are being told. And preferably without trivializing the methods of others and then getting butthurt about having your own, far less generally accepted in this context, methods trivialized.

I actually read your entire post and thought it was very well written. So, you're also another one on here who is just not another pretty face.

I believe Cratos has done these studies as he's alluded because I've seen a couple of responses which he couldn't have just pulled out of the air. I've worked with engineers in the past and they are very precise in their work. He's probably a little too precise for me regarding horse racing because I don't have the resources or patience to perform the calculations. If I did decide to do something similar (btw, a big if) the race would have been over by about an hour or a couple of days and it would have been easier to just look up the chart. I don't think it's necessary to handicap their way but he is presenting a different POV.

His references to moisture, wind etc., are also being done by TrackMaster which I've found the video which I've previously seen and including it here. It's about 30 minutes. Listen in it's entirety but listen to the race adjustment section.

I once asked him if he or any of his associates were or had been affiliated with TrackMaster and he said no. So, their studies are from their own ideas.

[YT="30 minute video"]CGGJdHX4dpQ[/YT]

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

...
His references to moisture, wind etc., are also being done by TrackMaster which I've found the video which I've previously seen and including it here. It's about 30 minutes. Listen in it's entirety but listen to the race adjustment section.

...

Thanks. I will definitely check it out.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Thanks. I will definitely check it out.

I forgot to mention in my other post that your previous post was submitted without an edit. You must have been very focused on what you wanted to write which I found very impressive.