Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 09-11-2018, 05:53 PM   #31
Poindexter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 923
Rep Power: 12 Poindexter will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by o_crunk View Post
Some cobbled together stats on horses breaking through gate and having that denoted in charts. These stats go back about 10 years:

https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/999296747548676096

Pretty compelling evidence that these horses should indeed be scratched. It is a huge disservice to the public keeping them racing. But then again when has racing ever cared about the public? Obviously a huge edge can be had by tossing the favorite if he breaks through the gate and playing a multi leg exotic keying other key contenders But the other side of the coin is if you happen to be stuck with one of these horse as a single, you are in big trouble. The favorite data, that really speaks volumes. At a minimum they should be winning at at least a 30% clip and they are only winning at a 13.6% clip. Wow. The less than 40% itm % on favorites is certainly a huge trifecta opportunity (just toss these horse when they are favorites and low odds). Also I am sure a lot of money is taken off of these horses by those who see the event and are able to cancel the tickets, so the numbers don't even tell the complete story.

I am sure there are a few out there that make a killing on these situations and want me to stfu .

Regarding the stats presented, how did you come up with an expected 23.5% wins? Horses won 21.23%(5/23.5) as often as they should have but had a 50% roi. That cannot be right. Even the favorite data doesn't make sense. Favorites have to win at at least a 30% clip(expected) you have them winning 13.6% clip. So given the typical roi on a horse is about .8, the roi probably should be less than .40 yet you have them at .639 roi.
Poindexter is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-11-2018, 07:18 PM   #32
lamboguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston+Ocala
Posts: 18,402
Rep Power: 31 lamboguy has a spectacular aura aboutlamboguy has a spectacular aura about
its not fair for a guy sitting in a race track without the ability to cancel his bets in this situation while the people at home have that option.
lamboguy is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-11-2018, 07:43 PM   #33
v j stauffer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,232
Rep Power: 16 v j stauffer has a spectacular aura aboutv j stauffer has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamboguy View Post
its not fair for a guy sitting in a race track without the ability to cancel his bets in this situation while the people at home have that option.
I thought a player could go up to a live teller and cancel a bet? No?
__________________
"Just because she's a hitter and a thief doesn't mean she's not a good woman in all the other places" May Rose Prizzi
v j stauffer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-11-2018, 07:50 PM   #34
AltonKelsey
Registered User
 
AltonKelsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,352
Rep Power: 4 AltonKelsey will become famous soon enough
Touchy subject. Expensive for the tracks to scratch them all or run purse only.



Trainers would object to an auto scratch. After all , they do win .
AltonKelsey is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-11-2018, 07:59 PM   #35
lamboguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston+Ocala
Posts: 18,402
Rep Power: 31 lamboguy has a spectacular aura aboutlamboguy has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by v j stauffer View Post
I thought a player could go up to a live teller and cancel a bet? No?
he might have to wait in line to cancel and not have enough time.
lamboguy is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-11-2018, 08:25 PM   #36
bobphilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 1,981
Rep Power: 14 bobphilo will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsbag View Post
Bob,

I was happier when you attacked me and was sort of hoping we could engage in an all-out flame war. I'm looking for a way to earn a highly coveted PA red card without making it too obvious.

Regards,
Dinny


For all those who liked the video, this should interest you as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZVKt2aA9jg

A great feature that I wish NYRA had continued.
Hey Dinny,

That would have been some flame war but given our similar propensity for satirical debunking of irrational racing mythology I fear we are doomed to being on the same side on most issues.

Thanks for the Cordero interview video. Really brings back memories. I think Angel was a bit too self critical of his ride on Slew. No force on Earth could have gotten a better performance out of the great horse given the suicidal pace duel he endured.
Truth be known, I used to hate Cordero for his "race riding" antics. I recall in one race when he was riding Slew O Gold (I think) against Bates Motel and he deliberately swung way wide on the far turn to get his rival to lose ground, as if not realizing he was doing the same to his own horse. In the end Highland Blade came up the inside and beat them both.
What really got me was when he struck my beloved Genuine Risk in the face with his whip when she was making her move against him on Codex in the Preakness.

Best wishes,
Bob
bobphilo is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-11-2018, 08:36 PM   #37
Poindexter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 923
Rep Power: 12 Poindexter will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by AltonKelsey View Post
Touchy subject. Expensive for the tracks to scratch them all or run purse only.



Trainers would object to an auto scratch. After all , they do win .
I am curious about this. If these horses are winning less than half as often as they should, why would a trainer want to waste a start on the horse when he can enter him to race back soon with a much better chance of winning. Long run I think they would do better with an auto scratch on these horses in most instances (certain stakes races might be an exception).

Vic, I agree with Lambo. Often there is very little time to make cancels on these horses. At home you are able to do it(although I have had instances where I could not get through 5 or 6 tickets), if you are up in the grandstand, good luck.
Poindexter is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-11-2018, 08:45 PM   #38
bobphilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 1,981
Rep Power: 14 bobphilo will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poindexter View Post

Regarding the stats presented, how did you come up with an expected 23.5% wins? Horses won 21.23%(5/23.5) as often as they should have but had a 50% roi. That cannot be right. Even the favorite data doesn't make sense. Favorites have to win at at least a 30% clip(expected) you have them winning 13.6% clip. So given the typical roi on a horse is about .8, the roi probably should be less than .40 yet you have them at .639 roi.
I too am skeptical of some of these findings. I would be interested in the source of this study. Was this done by an established organization like the DRF or Equibase? DDid it have anything like the rigor of the landmark study by Prof. Quirin? What exactly was the protocol and sample selection?
Given that starting gates are designed to open fairly easily precisely for the reason to avoid hurting any horse that breaks through, I find such a dramatic affect hard to believe.
The original claim of 92% losers for breakthroughs is meaningless on the face of it since about 90% of all starters are losers to begin with. The % of breakthrough losers that are short priced favorites is bound to be lower still. It's actually possible that horses that break through my have an advantage since they may be more eager to race?

Last edited by bobphilo; 09-11-2018 at 08:55 PM.
bobphilo is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-11-2018, 09:01 PM   #39
v j stauffer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,232
Rep Power: 16 v j stauffer has a spectacular aura aboutv j stauffer has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poindexter View Post
I am curious about this. If these horses are winning less than half as often as they should, why would a trainer want to waste a start on the horse when he can enter him to race back soon with a much better chance of winning. Long run I think they would do better with an auto scratch on these horses in most instances (certain stakes races might be an exception).

Vic, I agree with Lambo. Often there is very little time to make cancels on these horses. At home you are able to do it(although I have had instances where I could not get through 5 or 6 tickets), if you are up in the grandstand, good luck.
What Lambo said was they didn't have the ability to cancel live bets on track. That was misleading.
__________________
"Just because she's a hitter and a thief doesn't mean she's not a good woman in all the other places" May Rose Prizzi
v j stauffer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-11-2018, 09:51 PM   #40
Mailman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: R.I.
Posts: 128
Rep Power: 15 Mailman is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post
I doubt a responsible steward would over-ride a vet's advice to scratch a horse.

Finger Lakes super horse Fio Rito broke through the gate at Saratoga in the 80s.

They put him back in and he won the Whitney wire to wire.
I was at Saratoga that day, Asst. Starter had a good hold on him, ran about 5 yards out of the gate with the starter hanging on. I kept waiting for him to stop, I bet the horse that finished second, Winters Tale i think. Bahhhh !!
Mailman is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-11-2018, 10:13 PM   #41
o_crunk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 222
Rep Power: 13 o_crunk is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poindexter View Post

Regarding the stats presented, how did you come up with an expected 23.5% wins? Horses won 21.23%(5/23.5) as often as they should have but had a 50% roi. That cannot be right. Even the favorite data doesn't make sense. Favorites have to win at at least a 30% clip(expected) you have them winning 13.6% clip. So given the typical roi on a horse is about .8, the roi probably should be less than .40 yet you have them at .639 roi.
The ROI's are $2 not to the dollar. Expected is calculated using the Gordon Pine method found here (and yes, takeout is included in the calculations):

http://www.netcapper.com/TrackTracts...e/TT010223.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobphilo
I too am skeptical of some of these findings. I would be interested in the source of this study. Was this done by an established organization like the DRF or Equibase? DDid it have anything like the rigor of the landmark study by Prof. Quirin? What exactly was the protocol and sample selection?
Given that starting gates are designed to open fairly easily precisely for the reason to avoid hurting any horse that breaks through, I find such a dramatic affect hard to believe.
The original claim of 92% losers for breakthroughs is meaningless on the face of it since about 90% of all starters are losers to begin with. The % of breakthrough losers that are short priced favorites is bound to be lower still. It's actually possible that horses that break through my have an advantage since they may be more eager to race?
I searched the long comment of Equibase charts for the specific term: "broke through gate". I did that for 10 years of charts that included every t-bred race in the US in the last 10 years. You do not have to believe the results as the query is not precise. I'm sure there will be horses who broke through the gate that were not noted by the chart caller. It's imprecise science. If you actually believe horses who break through the gate are at an advantage, I'm happy to bet against you! I'm pretty sure this data is reasonably accurate.
o_crunk is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-11-2018, 10:29 PM   #42
AskinHaskin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 248
Rep Power: 3 AskinHaskin will become famous soon enough
So let me summarize:


(eternally suspicious) people can ascertain that a claim of 92% losses by runners who "broke through the gate" pre-race is minimally significant in light of the perception that nearly 90% of all horses lose.

Yet on a message board where they in large numbers complain about short fields (everywhere), nobody raises an eyebrow at a stat which cites just 118 of 1208 runners who "broke through..." happened to be favorites.

This would all be fine if some environment (outside of Kentucky Downs) could even boast an average field size of 10.00, let alone more, long-term. OR if somebody could accumulate enough data to prove that the vast majority of horses breaking through the gate happened in extremely-large fields. The fact is, that just one lengthy race meeting in America in a recent year reached as many as 9.00 average field size, which would suggest random runners breaking-through being at least 11.11% favorites (and more than that, in all probability, what with sooooooo many tiny fields offset somewhat by the occasional 12-horse group)

If this were merely a measure of favorites breaking poorly, or something, then one could (hypothesize) that the starter was more often staring at the favorite as he pushed the button, aiding the favorite not AS often breaking poorly.

But this is a case of breaking through, and then being reloaded, with plenty of time to (be passed-off as fit to run).


NOT to mention the (greater economic pressure on the favorite being left in the field so as to suit the mutuel department). Offending longshots are more often scratched in those scenarios (than is the betting favorite) and yet fewer than 10% of so-affected runners are favorites (when the bell finally does ring).


Something is wrong with the stats, most probably.


But, hey, maybe everybody but you (once again) was allowed to cancel enough wagering money that those original favorites were supplanted as favorites by the original 2nd-favorite once the original favorite broke through.


Meaning, anytime it was the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd favorite who broke-through, all of the other guys' money came out of the win pool (saving their collective asses) (while yours was left to burn-up on the hapless steed).


Check the data...
AskinHaskin is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-11-2018, 10:47 PM   #43
o_crunk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 222
Rep Power: 13 o_crunk is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin View Post
So let me summarize:


(eternally suspicious) people can ascertain that a claim of 92% losses by runners who "broke through the gate" pre-race is minimally significant in light of the perception that nearly 90% of all horses lose.

Yet on a message board where they in large numbers complain about short fields (everywhere), nobody raises an eyebrow at a stat which cites just 118 of 1208 runners who "broke through..." happened to be favorites.

This would all be fine if some environment (outside of Kentucky Downs) could even boast an average field size of 10.00, let alone more, long-term. OR if somebody could accumulate enough data to prove that the vast majority of horses breaking through the gate happened in extremely-large fields. The fact is, that just one lengthy race meeting in America in a recent year reached as many as 9.00 average field size, which would suggest random runners breaking-through being at least 11.11% favorites (and more than that, in all probability, what with sooooooo many tiny fields offset somewhat by the occasional 12-horse group)

If this were merely a measure of favorites breaking poorly, or something, then one could (hypothesize) that the starter was more often staring at the favorite as he pushed the button, aiding the favorite not AS often breaking poorly.

But this is a case of breaking through, and then being reloaded, with plenty of time to (be passed-off as fit to run).


NOT to mention the (greater economic pressure on the favorite being left in the field so as to suit the mutuel department). Offending longshots are more often scratched in those scenarios (than is the betting favorite) and yet fewer than 10% of so-affected runners are favorites (when the bell finally does ring).


Something is wrong with the stats, most probably.


But, hey, maybe everybody but you (once again) was allowed to cancel enough wagering money that those original favorites were supplanted as favorites by the original 2nd-favorite once the original favorite broke through.


Meaning, anytime it was the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd favorite who broke-through, all of the other guys' money came out of the win pool (saving their collective asses) (while yours was left to burn-up on the hapless steed).


Check the data...
Yes check the data. Do something simple like sample the last 1200 horses who are racing, say, lasix free (or some such other low value move). You will certainly *not* find 300 favorites in the last 1200 instances of that such move or many other popular moves. I did not find this to be particularly abnormal - there is only one favorite in the race. There are many starters in those races. If you think breaking through the gate is random, there is probably a range of scenarios where only 11% of favorites make up the sample, particularly when you factor in the average field size for the sample is closer to 8 than it is 7 (remember the query goes back 10 years).

So in that spirit, you and everyone else in this thread can check the data here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1a17dy2qi0...gate.xlsx?dl=0
o_crunk is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-11-2018, 11:43 PM   #44
Poindexter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 923
Rep Power: 12 Poindexter will become famous soon enough
Broke through gate: 1208: 61-85-95 with a $2 ROI $0.502. Of that 1208 horses, 118 were favs and they went 118: 16-18-13 w/ ROI of $0.639. Expected wins from the total group was 23.5%, actual wins 5%. They are MAJOR plays against.

---------------------------------------

If I understand correctly both the .502 and .639 are returns on every $2 bet or a 75% on the dollar loss on all horses and a 68% on the dollar loss on favorites. That is woeful. IMO op is vindicated.
Poindexter is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 12:28 AM   #45
davew
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,744
Rep Power: 20 davew is just really nicedavew is just really nicedavew is just really nicedavew is just really nicedavew is just really nice
Quote:
Originally Posted by v j stauffer View Post
What Lambo said was they didn't have the ability to cancel live bets on track. That was misleading.
What he was implying was that the logistics of getting to the teller within 45 seconds may be next to impossible. I remember a few years ago when I went to Santa Anita, my location in the stands was a couple minutes from the nearest teller. Maybe the crowds are smaller now and you can do it in 30 seconds...
__________________
myFanDan says -> Like a shit cherry on top.
davew is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
» Current Polls
Which handicapping software has given you the best ROI?
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2018 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved -- Best Viewed in a modern browser @ 1280x720 Resolution Or Higher
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.