Form and the Second Derivative

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

One could argue that handicapping stakes is about the fundamentals of class, speed, form, running styles, trip, pace, bias etc.. because they are almost always trying, almost always sound, and almost always trained by competent trainers.

One could argue that handicapping claiming races is about trying to figure out who is sound and likely to run well today because many are neither and many are also trained by less competent trainers.

I agree with both of your assertions, but the OP started this thread with the assertion that the derivative would be an objective way to understand if a horse is "asked" and now he has moved to the subjective criteria of the "if condition".

Both approaches might be used, but in different circumstances.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

One could argue that handicapping stakes is about the fundamentals of class, speed, form, running styles, trip, pace, bias etc.. because they are almost always trying, almost always sound, and almost always trained by competent trainers.

One could argue that handicapping claiming races is about trying to figure out who is sound and likely to run well today because many are neither and many are also trained by less competent trainers.

Agree. With the young graded, it's a question if the horse is able for the challenge. It can be a little like figuring out claiming.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I agree with both of your assertions, but the OP started this thread with the assertion that the derivative would be an objective way to understand if a horse is "asked" and now he has moved to the subjective criteria of the "if condition".

Both approaches might be used, but in different circumstances.

I don't know what OP stands for if it doesn't stand for Oak Park. I probably don't need to know. As for me, I haven't changed my stance. Being asked to strike and condition play hand in hand.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

I don't know what OP stands for if

OP = Original Poster (person that started the thread)

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

I don't know what OP stands for if it doesn't stand for Oak Park. I probably don't need to know. As for me, I haven't changed my stance. Being asked to strike and condition play hand in hand.

OP = Original Poster or the poster who started a thread.

However you never expanded your assertion about the "derivative" and you didn't make a distinction between the physical and the geometric understanding of the derivative.

Therefore what is being stated is noise without substance.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Cratos

OP = Original Poster or the poster who started a thread.

However you never expanded your assertion about the "derivative" and you didn't make a distinction between the physical and the geometric understanding of the derivative.

Therefore what is being stated is noise without substance.

Funny. Did you read post #2? Apparently, Traynor didn't have a problem with it. It's a difficult topic because it ends up being a best guess scenario, and it's not as simple as who has the best speed figure.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Funny. Did you read post #2? Apparently, Traynor didn't have a problem with it. It's a difficult topic because it ends up being a best guess scenario, and it's not as simple as who has the best speed figure.

Yes, I did read post #2, and it doesn't absorb you from making a distinction and it would have either been geometrically looking at the slope of the race curve with respect to the horses' motion or evaluating the delta in the horses' time with respect to the delta in the horses' distance.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Yes, I did read post #2, and it doesn't absorb you from making a distinction and it would have either been geometrically looking at the slope of the race curve with respect to the horses' motion or evaluating the delta in the horses' time with respect to the delta in the horses' distance.

I think you may mean absolve?

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by traynor

I think you may mean absolve?

You are correct

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Yes, I did read post #2, and it doesn't absorb you from making a distinction and it would have either been geometrically looking at the slope of the race curve with respect to the horses' motion or evaluating the delta in the horses' time with respect to the delta in the horses' distance.

What distinction do I need to make? I quoted two popular angles that use improving speed or improving with distance going longer. Math can blind one if not kept in check. It isn't about the optimal mathematical expression, it's about the horses. Most good elementary stats will do once the problem is understood.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

What distinction do I need to make? I quoted two popular angles that use improving speed or improving with distance going longer. Math can blind one if not kept in check. It isn't about the optimal mathematical expression, it's about the horses. Most good elementary stats will do once the problem is understood.

The problem here is that you are inferring that horserace handicapping is some sort of unique analytic; and nothing can further from the truth.

Horserace handicapping is about the measurement and prediction of objects moving through space over a surface within a closed circuit.

To that end, the analytical tools of math, science, and statistics are very suited to help anyone who have a good understanding of those disciplines along with an understanding of horseracing should do well.

The only ones who are blinded are the ones who do not understand or don't want to understand the concepts of the aforementioned disciplines.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Cratos

The problem here is that you are inferring that horserace handicapping is some sort of unique analytic; and nothing can further from the truth.

Horserace handicapping is about the measurement and prediction of objects moving through space over a surface within a closed circuit.

To that end, the analytical tools of math, science, and statistics are very suited to help anyone who have a good understanding of those disciplines along with an understanding of horseracing should do well.

The only ones who are blinded are the ones who do not understand or don't want to understand the concepts of the aforementioned disciplines.

Cratos, we all have seen you post this same message countless times. Trust me, we get it, message received, but maybe it's time for you to get the next "breakthrough" revelation that you want us all to contemplate.....BTW, that's IF you have another.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Cratos, we all have seen you post this same message countless times. Trust me, we get it, message received, but maybe it's time for you to get the next "breakthrough" revelation that you want us all to contemplate.....BTW, that's IF you have another.

I did not start this thread with the assertion that the mathematical derivative is what should be considered in handicapping; the OP did.

In all due respect, using the ubiquitous "we" is hilarious because as I understand the terms of the usage of this forum; it is a public forum with rules for posting.

There many topics that I might disagree with or not have an interest on the forum and I just don't participate.

Incidentally, I don't think I ever advocated a "breakthrough revelation" that I want you or anyone else to understand.

In my 11 years on this forum, the most "breakthrough revelation'' in my opinion was the use of Bayesian statistics by the poster, TrifectaMike.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Incidentally, I don't think I ever advocated a "breakthrough revelation" that I want you or anyone else to understand.

In my 11 years on this forum, the most "breakthrough revelation'' in my opinion was the use of Bayesian statistics by the poster, TrifectaMike.

Don't take things personal now, I just told you MY perception of how your posts have been coming across lately. My mistake for using the term "we"......BTW, with all due respect, we are peers....don't ever forget it.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Don't take things personal now, I just told you MY perception of how your posts have been coming across lately. My mistake for using the term "we"......BTW, with all due respect, we are peers....don't ever forget it.

No animosity on my part and I am proud to be your peer.