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 09-12-2018, 03:38 PM   #61
bobphilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 1,981
Rep Power: 14 bobphilo will become famous soon enough
Just realized that the primary problem with this study is that it is going about things all wrong.

When planning a study, first one decides what effects a variable has on a given population. Then compare what are the effects of different values of this variable.
To give a simple example: To determine the effect of being on the early lead in the population of 6F races, you compare the Win%, Impact Value, ROI , etc of horses who lead early in that population with these values of those that don't. That's how Brisnet does their Bias numbers in their Race Summaries

Therefore if you want to know the effect of breakthroughs on the starter population in general, you compute the Win%, IV, ROI, etc of breakthroughs with the general population.

If you want to know the effect of breakthroughs on favorites in order to expose vulnerable favorites, you take the population of favorites and compare the Win%, I.V., R.O.I. of those who breakthrough with those that don't.

The problem with this study is that it does neither. All it does is try to tell you out of the population of horses that breakthrough whether they do better as favorites or not. It only helps if it had already been determined that breakthroughs are a disadvantage in a previous proper study, whether or the favorite or other is the better bet. Not nearly as useful. Even at that this study seems to have problems with data correctness.
bobphilo is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 04:06 PM   #62
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 41,748
Rep Power: 66 cj is a splendid one to beholdcj is a splendid one to beholdcj is a splendid one to beholdcj is a splendid one to beholdcj is a splendid one to beholdcj is a splendid one to beholdcj is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobphilo View Post
Just realized that the primary problem with this study is that it is going about things all wrong.

When planning a study, first one decides what effects a variable has on a given population. Then compare what are the effects of different values of this variable.
To give a simple example: To determine the effect of being on the early lead in the population of 6F races, you compare the Win%, Impact Value, ROI , etc of horses who lead early in that population with these values of those that don't. That's how Brisnet does their Bias numbers in their Race Summaries

Therefore if you want to know the effect of breakthroughs on the starter population in general, you compute the Win%, IV, ROI, etc of breakthroughs with the general population.

If you want to know the effect of breakthroughs on favorites in order to expose vulnerable favorites, you take the population of favorites and compare the Win%, I.V., R.O.I. of those who breakthrough with those that don't.

The problem with this study is that it does neither. All it does is try to tell you out of the population of horses that breakthrough whether they do better as favorites or not. It only helps if it had already been determined that breakthroughs are a disadvantage in a previous proper study, whether or the favorite or other is the better bet. Not nearly as useful. Even at that this study seems to have problems with data correctness.
The performance of all favorites in general is very easy to find. It will clearly show that those that don't break through the gate (if noted in the chart) do MUCH better than those that do. Most people know how favorites do these days from a Win%, IV, and ROI perspective. I would say though it wasn't presented by o_crunk that is pretty much because it is a known quantity. Even those that don't really know can look at the break through horses and know they are much worse.

I also happen think you guys are greatly overstating the data problem here. It isn't perfect, but it isn't near as bad as you guys are pretending and certainly not bad enough to skew the statistics posted from being quite negative.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 04:13 PM   #63
AltonKelsey
Registered User
 
AltonKelsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,352
Rep Power: 4 AltonKelsey will become famous soon enough
No comment on the 2% rate over 4.99-1



That implies a 50-1 chance



Even worse than the faves , no?
AltonKelsey is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 04:21 PM   #64
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 ZippyChippy423 View Post
Since there is a direct corrolation between a horse breaking through a gate prior to the start and not winning, stewards and racing officials should entertain some new rules. If they still want the horse to race then make it for purse money only and refund all wagers. The betting public is not getting a fair shake on this one. The early gate break is equivalent to a horse getting loose and running off before the load. Those horses always get scratched.
Those horses are not always scratched.
__________________
"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 09-12-2018, 04:22 PM   #65
AltonKelsey
Registered User
 
AltonKelsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,352
Rep Power: 4 AltonKelsey will become famous soon enough
"All it does is try to tell you out of the population of horses that breakthrough whether they do better as favorites or not."




Really, that's not what I see. Maybe you're looking at a different study.





I think we might have a pearls before swine situation here.



The study clearly shows breakthroughs are a strong net negative.





Not sure why all the hole poking. If you have a better database , fine, but as cj says, unless this one is totally screwed, the conclusion is clear.
AltonKelsey is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 07:25 PM   #66
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 cj View Post
The performance of all favorites in general is very easy to find. It will clearly show that those that don't break through the gate (if noted in the chart) do MUCH better than those that do. Most people know how favorites do these days from a Win%, IV, and ROI perspective. I would say though it wasn't presented by o_crunk that is pretty much because it is a known quantity. Even those that don't really know can look at the break through horses and know they are much worse.

I also happen think you guys are greatly overstating the data problem here. It isn't perfect, but it isn't near as bad as you guys are pretending and certainly not bad enough to skew the statistics posted from being quite negative.
That may be so but have yet to see a good study to prove it. As I said earlier, the gates are designed to open easily so as to not have an negative effect on the horse but until someone does a proper Quirin-like study it will remain a matter of opinion.
The most absurd claim that started this thread was that 92% of horses that break through the gate proves they are at a disadvantage. If a drug company found a medication that cures a disease 80% of the time it is naive to think it is a miracle drug. Sometimes just a placebo will have the same effect. That's why the FDA requires a control group to recognize the effect. It's just as naive to claim that 92% losers means they are at some disadvantage when just about all starters lose about 90% of the time.

As for the other study, it totally misses the point of how to pick and set up the appropriate study if the intention is to see whether breakthroughs, as a part of either the general population, or favorites are poor bets. Had I presented. such stuff to one of my research methods professors, I would have received an F and a stern reminder to pick the right method to prove my hypothesis.

Personally, after have spent years of time and sweat in my graduate study and teaching of research methods and statistics, it disturbs me to see them misused so often - just like advertisers and politicians do.
bobphilo is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2018, 07:40 AM   #67
biggestal99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,783
Rep Power: 8 biggestal99 has a spectacular aura aboutbiggestal99 has a spectacular aura aboutbiggestal99 has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobphilo View Post
That may be so but have yet to see a good study to prove it. As I said earlier, the gates are designed to open easily so as to not have an negative effect on the horse but until someone does a proper Quirin-like study it will remain a matter of opinion.
The most absurd claim that started this thread was that 92% of horses that break through the gate proves they are at a disadvantage. If a drug company found a medication that cures a disease 80% of the time it is naive to think it is a miracle drug. Sometimes just a placebo will have the same effect. That's why the FDA requires a control group to recognize the effect. It's just as naive to claim that 92% losers means they are at some disadvantage when just about all starters lose about 90% of the time.

As for the other study, it totally misses the point of how to pick and set up the appropriate study if the intention is to see whether breakthroughs, as a part of either the general population, or favorites are poor bets. Had I presented. such stuff to one of my research methods professors, I would have received an F and a stern reminder to pick the right method to prove my hypothesis.

Personally, after have spent years of time and sweat in my graduate study and teaching of research methods and statistics, it disturbs me to see them misused so often - just like advertisers and politicians do.
What data points should a study of break though include beside the obvious
Odds, number of horses in race, finish position and payoffs.

Allan
biggestal99 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2018, 01:49 PM   #68
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 AltonKelsey View Post
"All it does is try to tell you out of the population of horses that breakthrough whether they do better as favorites or not."




Really, that's not what I see. Maybe you're looking at a different study.





I think we might have a pearls before swine situation here.



The study clearly shows breakthroughs are a strong net negative.





Not sure why all the hole poking. If you have a better database , fine, but as cj says, unless this one is totally screwed, the conclusion is clear.
I explained earlier, the way this study is set up, the hypothesis being tested is: Among all horses breaking through the gate, how do favorites compare to the population as a whole? I don't think that's what the author is trying to ask. I think what he's trying to ask is, among all horses how do breakthroughs perform compared to the whole population? Or maybe he's trying to ask, among all favorites, how do breakthroughs perform compared to the population of all favorites? In other words, are such favorites vulnerable? For that he would have to do a different study.
This is elementary stats. If you want the right answer you must first ask the right question. if not, your not going to answer the question you want, no matter how correctly the study is done.

Last edited by bobphilo; 09-13-2018 at 01:50 PM.
bobphilo is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2018, 01:51 PM   #69
AltonKelsey
Registered User
 
AltonKelsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,352
Rep Power: 4 AltonKelsey will become famous soon enough
imo the data permits any number of questions to be asked and answered, assuming its representative.



not limited to favorites or any other class of horse .
AltonKelsey is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2018, 02:00 PM   #70
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 biggestal99 View Post
What data points should a study of break though include beside the obvious
Odds, number of horses in race, finish position and payoffs.

Allan
All values of the variables you list could be used depending on what question you are asking about breakthroughs. That would guide how you frame your hypothesis and what method you use.
bobphilo is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2018, 02:12 PM   #71
ultracapper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,902
Rep Power: 8 ultracapper is on a distinguished road
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."
ultracapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2018, 02:16 PM   #72
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 AltonKelsey View Post
imo the data permits any number of questions to be asked and answered, assuming its representative.



not limited to favorites or any other class of horse .
A number of questions can be answered by the data presented but first one has to have a specific question to form the right hypothesis and how the data is used. If one is interested in favorites, they can be included. If not, they can be excluded. It all depends on what question you are trying to answer. There are specific ways of structuring a study and using the data depending on the hypothesis. the data must be used within a specific structure to answer a specific question.

I am not saying that this data would not support the hypothesis about the negative effects of breakthroughs.
Tell you what - give me a specific question and I will tell you what data I need and how to use it to answer the question.
bobphilo is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2018, 05:33 PM   #73
AltonKelsey
Registered User
 
AltonKelsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,352
Rep Power: 4 AltonKelsey will become famous soon enough
Not sure I understand the problem. This is not rocket science.



If I want to know how a trainer does with first time starters , I look at all his first time starters .


If I want to see how gate breakthroughs perform, I take a list exactly like the one provided and analyze that .


If they win at half the expected rate , I have information.


I don't think I need a database consultant to figure this out.
AltonKelsey is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-13-2018, 06:27 PM   #74
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
Today at Kentucky Downs. Two separate horses broke through the gate not once but TWICE. Both horses ran and finished far back.
__________________
"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 09-13-2018, 07:17 PM   #75
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 AltonKelsey View Post
Not sure I understand the problem. This is not rocket science.



If I want to know how a trainer does with first time starters , I look at all his first time starters .


If I want to see how gate breakthroughs perform, I take a list exactly like the one provided and analyze that .


If they win at half the expected rate , I have information.
I don't think I need a database consultant to figure this out

I.
Who said you need a data consultant? No, it's not rocket science. It's research science.

If you want to know how gate breakers perform you compare them to other starters in general. You need a control group to get an impact value and expected rate.

If you want the best way to see how this trainer does with 1st time starters you want to know how they do compared to his other starters or the population of 1st timers in general. You need a control group to get an impact value an and expected rate. In this case you might be able to get away with the "quick and dirty" method and eliminate a control group though I would prefer to see just how his win%, etc compares to others.

Just do what Quirin did. It's simple stats. there's a reason this methodology has developed.

All I can do is tell you what any statistician would. In the end it's your choice and your money.

Good luck, whatever you do.

Last edited by bobphilo; 09-13-2018 at 07:24 PM.
bobphilo 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 of the following software has helped your ROI the most?
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:30 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.