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, 11:33 PM   #46
davew
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poindexter View Post
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.
ROI is usually per $ ... I do not know where they are playing where the favorite averages more than 3/1, or is that all the horses that broke through gate?
davew is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 01:08 AM   #47
AltonKelsey
Veteran
 
AltonKelsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,831
Filter for odds of >=5-1



only 16 out of 804 , a paltry 2%
AltonKelsey is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 01:11 AM   #48
AskinHaskin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by o_crunk View Post
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).

Why mention the irrelevant bullshit?



Racing "lasix free" is not a "move" in and of itself.

(and then include a data set listing twelve runners who were "declared non-starters") (it is a foregone conclusion that almost no runners who are "declared non-starters" have much hope of winning those races)

Runners "breaking through the gate" are relatively random, determined mostly by chance.

The scratching of such runners leans significantly toward the outsiders, because the mutuel department can do away with them with relatively low cost to the handle.

Ergo, the instances of break-throughs who went on to run in those races would lean toward a higher percentage of favorite than the random norm. (some allowances must be made for some occasions when bettors do have time to identify the culprit AND cancel tickets - perhaps even rendering SOME of those original favorites no longer the 'favorite' at off time).


So the study was hundreds of races, where with your use of "8" for average field size, it should have landed randomly at or even near to 12.5% favorites... and yet the culprits in the study couldn't even reach 10% favorites, despite human factors (the mutuel department having a stake in what occurs) likely to make the favorite percentage even higher than pure randomness.

The data is most likely flawed for reasons which aren't disclosed by the study's author.

Last edited by AskinHaskin; 09-12-2018 at 01:26 AM.
AskinHaskin is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 01:24 AM   #49
AltonKelsey
Veteran
 
AltonKelsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,831
I wonder, is that the only text that's used in the charts to notate a gate break? no other term used ? "broke through gate"



Or was that the only string searched for?
AltonKelsey is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 01:30 AM   #50
AskinHaskin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin View Post
So the study was hundreds of races, where with your use of "8" for average field size, it should have landed randomly at or even near to 12.5% favorites (as the runners who broke-through, not as the winners of those races)... and yet the culprits in the study couldn't even reach 10% favorites, despite human factors (the mutuel department having a stake in what occurs) likely to make the favorite percentage even higher than pure randomness.
The data is most likely flawed for reasons which aren't disclosed by the study's author.
AskinHaskin is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 06:31 AM   #51
o_crunk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by davew View Post
ROI is usually per $ ... I do not know where they are playing where the favorite averages more than 3/1, or is that all the horses that broke through gate?
That is all the horses that broke through the gate and the chart caller noted "broke through gate" in the chart. I use $2 because that what the mutuel is based on - $2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin
So the study was hundreds of races, where with your use of "8" for average field size, it should have landed randomly at or even near to 12.5% favorites... and yet the culprits in the study couldn't even reach 10% favorites, despite human factors (the mutuel department having a stake in what occurs) likely to make the favorite percentage even higher than pure randomness.

The data is most likely flawed for reasons which aren't disclosed by the study's author.
The "study", if you want to call it that which I don't, it was a query - that's all. Anyway the study looked at 684,018 t-bred races from 1/1/2007 through 5/23/2018. Those races had 5,799,423 starters for an average field size of 8.478. Of the 1,208 who broke the gate, the field size in those races was 8.626.

You are free to not believe the "study" and call it flawed. As I've posted previously - the query is imprecise, meaning it's not likely a full accounting of horses breaking through the gate as it leans heavily on the chart caller to note that and then note it in a very specific way. I've shared the data and you're free to look it up and check. If you have a better "study" of such horses, bring it on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AltonKelsey
I wonder, is that the only text that's used in the charts to notate a gate break? no other term used ? "broke through gate"



Or was that the only string searched for?
That was the only string searched for "broke through gate" - those three words in succession appearing anywhere in the comment. I can search for other terms if you have suggestions.
o_crunk is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 08:15 AM   #52
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
I've done enough queries like this to know that even if every horse were found there is no way that ROI would improve much at all, nor the win percentage. Anyone betting these types is paddling upstream.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 08:26 AM   #53
biggestal99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin View Post

Runners "breaking through the gate" are relatively random, determined mostly by chance.
I disagree 100%. Breaking though the gate is not random. There are specific reasons for it.

Allan
biggestal99 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 08:46 AM   #54
ZippyChippy423
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 188
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.
ZippyChippy423 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 08:56 AM   #55
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
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.
They are not going to do that, nor should they in my opinion. Purse money only hurts field size, and thus bettors, and it also takes the horse out of action for another start. Either scratch the horse or run, but purse money only stinks for horseplayers.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 09:06 AM   #56
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
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
The one potential problem with this data (and I obviously don't know the answer), is that there might be some bias to include that information in the chart when the horse runs poorly or was a short price so people know there was a potential excuse. If the horse wins anyway, someone might feel less inclined to mention it.

If so, that would skew the data.

All that said, Seattle Slew's Jock Club Gold Cup looks even better now. He broke through the gate before that amazing effort.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"

Last edited by classhandicapper; 09-12-2018 at 09:15 AM.
classhandicapper is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 11:19 AM   #57
bobphilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
Before debating as to whether all horses breaking through gates should be scratched and whether people betting on track are at an unfair advantage advantage we first need to establish 2 things which we seem to be debating simultaneously.
1) Are horses breaking through the gate are at a disadvantage.
2) If so, are favorites doing so at a particular disadvantage and should be bet against.

The data and methodology presented for these seems questionable on 1 or more levels and should be examined in ore detail. Just on the surface the quality of the data based solely from reports from the charts is questionable as charts are notorious for sometimes omitting crucial information. That's why it is so much preferable to use video replays in see what actually happened in a race.
Furthermore, there seem to be even more serious errors in methodology which bear further exploration, which I will elaborate on when done.
bobphilo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 11:33 AM   #58
bobphilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by o_crunk View Post
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.
I never said that I believe that horses breaking through the gate are at an an advantage and that that I would therefore bet on them. My point was that lacking proper evidence either way one could make a plausible argument that breaking through could actually be an advantage. That, of course, would not be a reason by for betting on them.

I will deal with the problems with the study posted in a later post as I stated earlier.
bobphilo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 01:01 PM   #59
AskinHaskin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by o_crunk View Post
That is all the horses that broke through the gate and the chart caller noted "broke through gate" in the chart. I use $2 because that what the mutuel is based on - $2.



The "study", if you want to call it that which I don't, it was a query - that's all. Anyway the study looked at 684,018 t-bred races from 1/1/2007 through 5/23/2018. Those races had 5,799,423 starters for an average field size of 8.478. Of the 1,208 who broke the gate, the field size in those races was 8.626.

You are free to not believe the "study" and call it flawed. As I've posted previously - the query is imprecise, meaning it's not likely a full accounting of horses breaking through the gate as it leans heavily on the chart caller to note that and then note it in a very specific way. I've shared the data and you're free to look it up and check. If you have a better "study" of such horses, bring it on.


Well feel free to explain-away just how you studied random occurrences in 1208 races and then cited runners who accounted for fewer than 10% favorites when 11.59% would have been the norm? After all, you surveyed 5.8 million horses to get this data.

Now just what is wrong with your data?

Every ounce of human bias would suggest that even more attention would be paid to favorites by every entity in these situations, except in your own data.


The starter is more probably staring at the favorite when about to push the button, than he is a 30-1 shot.

The vet is more likely to allow the favorite to run after breaking-through, than he is to allow some random 30-1 shot to run in the same situation (though of course few if any would admit as much).


At least show enough common sense to extract "declared non-starters" from your data.
AskinHaskin is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 09-12-2018, 01:41 PM   #60
biggestal99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin View Post
Well feel free to explain-away just how you studied random occurrences in 1208 races and then cited runners who accounted for fewer than 10% favorites when 11.59% would have been the norm? After all, you surveyed 5.8 million horses to get this data.
and once again I disagree breaking though the starting gate is not a random occurrence. There are specific reason why horse breaks the magnetic bond holding the gates closed before the gates open automatically.

Allan
biggestal99 is offline   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
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
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.