|
|
09-17-2018, 04:31 PM
|
#91
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
|
There was an interesting incident and conversation yesterday in the 7th race at Gulfstream when the 6 (Toss) broke through and may have run off. I say may have since I was in the other room and only heard it on TVG. I don't know whether or not he also ran off and how far, which is sure to effect what the consequences of the breakthrough were. I guess to properly distinguish the difference between horses that breakthrough and run off long enough to have an effect from those that only breakthrough we will have to decide what distance the run off was before we can decide if it had an effect apart from the breakthrough. It is crucial that we be able to tell the 2 apart if we are to do a valid study on the effects of breakthroughs separate from the effect of run offs.
Rick Perloff was asked whether or not he cancels his bets if his horse breaks through. He says it's not an easy decision but he usually doesn't cancel since he wants to avoid how stupid he'd feel if the horse he liked goes on to win after he canceled the bet because of the breakthough. That's why we need a good study to see whether or not we should feel stupid if this happens to us.
|
|
|
09-17-2018, 04:44 PM
|
#92
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
|
I've noticed a common comment in the charts is "hit gate". It seems that horses that have this comment do not lose more often than expected in general. Yet this must be more traumatic than breaking through. The gates are designed to open fairly easily if the horse puts pressure on them precisely to avoid hurting the horse if it breaks through. Yet when the horse hits the gate during the start the side it hits has no such give and would have a more negative effect on the horse. I wonder if a study that shows no significant effect of hitting the gate would indicate there should be no more negative effect of breaking through, which is less hurtful to the horse?
|
|
|
09-17-2018, 05:16 PM
|
#93
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,520
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobphilo
There was an interesting incident and conversation yesterday in the 7th race at Gulfstream when the 6 (Toss) broke through and may have run off. I say may have since I was in the other room and only heard it on TVG. I don't know whether or not he also ran off and how far, which is sure to effect what the consequences of the breakthrough were. I guess to properly distinguish the difference between horses that breakthrough and run off long enough to have an effect from those that only breakthrough we will have to decide what distance the run off was before we can decide if it had an effect apart from the breakthrough. It is crucial that we be able to tell the 2 apart if we are to do a valid study on the effects of breakthroughs separate from the effect of run offs.
Rick Perloff was asked whether or not he cancels his bets if his horse breaks through. He says it's not an easy decision but he usually doesn't cancel since he wants to avoid how stupid he'd feel if the horse he liked goes on to win after he canceled the bet because of the breakthough. That's why we need a good study to see whether or not we should feel stupid if this happens to us.
|
Actually 2 horses broke though. 2-1 2nd chalkie and super duper visor.
Too bad no x at gulfstream.
I really don’t care if they run off or not, just breaking though is good enough for me to lay the chalk. He only lost by 9.
Allan
|
|
|
09-17-2018, 06:04 PM
|
#94
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggestal99
Actually 2 horses broke though. 2-1 2nd chalkie and super duper visor.
Too bad no x at gulfstream.
I really don’t care if they run off or not, just breaking though is good enough for me to lay the chalk. He only lost by 9.
Allan
|
If just breaking through has no negative effect, like on Seattle Slew and Fio Rita, and running off does like the horses at Gulfstream, I definitely want to know, and any study that doesn't know the difference between the 2 won't prove a thing.
|
|
|
09-17-2018, 06:47 PM
|
#95
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 3,822
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobphilo
I've noticed a common comment in the charts is "hit gate". It seems that horses that have this comment do not lose more often than expected in general. Yet this must be more traumatic than breaking through. The gates are designed to open fairly easily if the horse puts pressure on them precisely to avoid hurting the horse if it breaks through. Yet when the horse hits the gate during the start the side it hits has no such give and would have a more negative effect on the horse. I wonder if a study that shows no significant effect of hitting the gate would indicate there should be no more negative effect of breaking through, which is less hurtful to the horse?
|
I think the message in this thread is that what it "seems" and what it "is" are something the same thing and sometimes not. I'd hold back on assuming there's nothing negative about breaking through the gate.
|
|
|
09-18-2018, 07:49 AM
|
#96
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by castaway01
I think the message in this thread is that what it "seems" and what it "is" are something the same thing and sometimes not. I'd hold back on assuming there's nothing negative about breaking through the gate.
|
I'm making no assumptions. I'm practically the only one here who is not assuming it is a negative. I really don't know for sure either way. That's why I need a properly done study which I see will never be done because the current one is including confounding data.
|
|
|
09-18-2018, 08:51 AM
|
#97
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,520
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobphilo
If just breaking through has no negative effect, like on Seattle Slew and Fio Rita, and running off does like the horses at Gulfstream, I definitely want to know, and any study that doesn't know the difference between the 2 won't prove a thing.
|
I disagree, Breaking though the gate has a negative effect. I have yet to see a horseplayer alive who said when his broke though the gate wow that increases his odds of winning.
now onto the runoff issue. How would one quantify that in a study, 20 feet, one second? said so in the chart?
if you want me to include runoffs I would need input about what constitutes a run off?
Allan
|
|
|
09-18-2018, 02:54 PM
|
#98
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,510
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZippyChippy423
We have all seen and heard it before. Horse breaks through gate prior to start almost always loses the race. It’s true and factual.....well statistically it happens about 92% of the time. Why if you are the owner or trainer would you want that horse to run after a gate break? Are the starter or vet only allowed to make that call?
|
For me , its Michael Corleone kissing his brother Fredo on New Years Eve......In a span of 1:10 to 1:50 seconds. I'm dead
|
|
|
09-18-2018, 04:50 PM
|
#99
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggestal99
I disagree, Breaking though the gate has a negative effect. I have yet to see a horseplayer alive who said when his broke though the gate wow that increases his odds of winning.
now onto the runoff issue. How would one quantify that in a study, 20 feet, one second? said so in the chart?
if you want me to include runoffs I would need input about what constitutes a run off?
Allan
|
If you're so sure that breaking through the gate is a negative why do the study? And if you are so sure, have you considered the danger of inviting the charge of researcher bias in the form of including negative confounding data.
I never said that I believed that breaking through the gate increases his chances of winning and the fact that you never heard a horseplayer says it does is irrelevant unless you're doing a study of opinions. Just stick to the relevant facts.
I already raised the same issue of how to define a run off. This can be a problematic grey area but surely you can't count a case where a horse just breaks through and is immediately stopped or just canters a few yards before being caught, the same as one that won't stop or dumps his rider and takes off at racing speed in a game of tag with the outrider and races part of his race before it even begins. Those would be easy to separate. For in between cases, perhaps we can consider it a run off if it ran half a furlong before being caught. I'm sure we could come up with something, but anything is better than no distinction at all. Whatever distance seems reasonable to have a negative effect on energy drain. Researchers have to wrestle with these type of decisions all the time. Good research aint easy and is more than just crunching numbers. Planning studies is hard work but it's worth it if you want a valid answer to the question you're asking.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|