lies, darned lies, and statistics

[sbcaris]

To all: Looking at the data presented in the Daily Racing Form I discovered an interesting fact about these Derby second place finishers in the Preakness.

There were 18 second place Derby finishers who raced in the Preakness that went off at odds of 3-1 or less in the Preakness. These second place Derby horses were certainly well regarded by the public and failed to win the Preakness.

Thats 18 highly regarded Preakness runners who could not win the roses after their Derby second place finish.

Perhaps this statistic that was written up by Marty McGee on page 11 of the DRF Saturday edition does have some clout after all.

Three winners in 41 years is terrible when one considers the odds that the 38 losers went off at. 3 of 41 equals 7.3% winners. One would expect much better results than that. Horses even going to post at odds of 5-1 have a much higher win rate than 7.3%

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by sbcaris

To all: Looking at the data presented in the Daily Racing Form I discovered an interesting fact about these Derby second place finishers in the Preakness.

There were 18 second place Derby finishers who raced in the Preakness that went off at odds of 3-1 or less in the Preakness. These second place Derby horses were certainly well regarded by the public and failed to win the Preakness.

Thats 18 highly regarded Preakness runners who could not win the roses after their Derby second place finish.

Perhaps this statistic that was written up by Marty McGee on page 11 of the DRF Saturday edition does have some clout after all.

Three winners in 41 years is terrible when one considers the odds that the 38 losers went off at. 3 of 41 equals 7.3% winners. One would expect much better results than that. Horses even going to post at odds of 5-1 have a much higher win rate than 7.3%

Way to ignore everything about sample size and the invalid selection of the sample in the OP.

[f2tornado]

I enjoy these stats but there are so many you could disqualify every horse. Only one horse has won Preakness with a dosage index higher than Nyquist but I sure as heck won't ignore the chalk here.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by f2tornado

I enjoy these stats but there are so many you could disqualify every horse. Only one horse has won Preakness with a dosage index higher than Nyquist but I sure as heck won't ignore the chalk here.

Breeding has changed past several years, & dosage is worthless now a days.

[RXB]

When I first compiled those stats prior to the 2012 Preakness, I showed individual stats for the Ky Derby 2nd & 3rd finishers and also combined their stats onto a different row since there had been some obvious short-term variance toward finishing 2nd in the Preakness for the Derby 2nd finisher and toward winning the Preakness for the 3rd finisher.

So here is the very same table in updated form, showing the Starts/Wins-Places-Shows from 1962-2015:

Derby winners: 51/22-10-6 (43% wins, 75% ITM, 18% flat-bet profit)
2nd in Derby: 38/2-12-9
3rd in Derby: 38/8-5-8
2nd & 3rd combined: 76/10-17-17 (13% wins, 58% ITM, 38% flat-bet loss)

The Derby winner has won five of the six Preakness photo finishes (neck or less) in that time. Let's hypothetically suppose that they'd been incredibly unlucky and lost all six of those photos instead of winning five. (Long run, since the Derby winners are typically the superior horse, I'd expect them to win closer to four of every six):

Derby winners: 51/17-15-6 (33% wins, 75% ITM, 11% flat-bet loss)
2nd & 3rd in Derby: 76/15-12-17 (20% wins, 58% ITM, 16% flat-bet loss)

Even under those unusually unfortunate hypothetical circumstances, as opposed to what actually did happen, the Derby winners would still would have more wins (and then also more seconds, in that case), from 51 starts than the Derby 2nd & 3rd finishers in 76 starts. They would still have outperformed the track takeout with only an 11% flat-bet loss on win wagers. And they still would have slightly outperformed the Derby 2nd & 3rd finishers on a flat-bet win basis. (All of those photos involved the 2nd or 3rd finisher from the Derby so that group benefits with a win in all five hypothetical turnarounds.)

[depalma113]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Sham losing to Secretariat, and Arts and Letters losing to Majestic Prince.

So it sounds bad. Like it never happens. The second place finisher in the Derby never wins the Preakness. But this is perfectly clear that this is just a product of RANDOM STATISTICAL VARIANCE.

It could be herd animals developing a pecking order and the alpha asserting it's dominance.

[fiznow]

Don't care much about these statistics.
There is only one truth about horse horse racing, no horse is unbeatable and every horse has a chance.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I just bought the print edition of the Racing Form, and I'm shocked the number of writers who are throwing out the "statistic" that Exaggerator cannot win because no 2nd place Derby finisher has won the Derby since Prairie Bayou in 1993, and only three have done so since 1960.

This is just an absurd example of the tendency of handicappers to create "statistics" based on tiny Triple Crown sample sizes that are clearly due to variance.

First of all, there's nothing special about running second in the Derby. Some horses who did so were excellent horses (Easy Goer, Summer Squall). Other horses who did so were nobodies (Commanding Curve, Golden Soul). Evaluating the statistic, rather than the individual horses, is ridiculous. Obviously, Easy Goer and Summer Squall had a much higher chance of winning the Preakness than Commanding Curve or Golden Soul did.

Second, 56 Preaknesses (starting in 1960) sounds like a lot, but really is a tiny sample sizes. When Sheldon Kovitz and Andrew Beyer first developed their speed figures, they used the data set from a year's worth of races in New York to develop the par times-- in those days that would have been about 180 race days with nine race cards, or 1620 races! If they had simply looked at 56 races, do you think their calculations would have been accurate? This is a problem with ALL Triple Crown stats, and is a reason why we keep seeing things that NEVER used to happen (favorites winning the Derby, horses with bad dosage winning the Derby, horses without good 2 year old form winning the Derby, 2 year old champions winning the Derby, Breeders' Cup Juvenile winners winning the Derby, horses without sufficient prep races at 3 winning the Derby) happen with regularity.

Third, let's look at some of the horses who lost the Preakness after finishing 2nd in the Derby. Easy Goer, in 1989, lost by a nose in a head-bob. Yet that loss counts equally in the stat to Firing Line running up the track two years ago. Similarly, Captain Bodget lost a three horse photo in 1997 to Silver Charm and Free House.

A number of the second place finishers finished second to the Derby winner again in the Preakness, which actually DOES NOT necesssarily suggest they were bad bets, because if something had happened to the Derby winner, they would have won. These include Bodemeister losing to I'll Have Another, Menifee losing to Charismatic, Victory Gallop losing to Real Quiet, Easy Goer, of course, losing to Sunday Silence, Bet Twice losing to Alysheba, Alydar losing to Affirmed, Sham losing to Secretariat, and Arts and Letters losing to Majestic Prince.

So it sounds bad. Like it never happens. The second place finisher in the Derby never wins the Preakness. But this is perfectly clear that this is just a product of RANDOM STATISTICAL VARIANCE.

The lesson: stop overemphasizing small-sample stats on big races like the Triple Crown and Breeders' Cup in your handicapping. They really are just noise most of the time. Handicap based on fundamentals, not that something can "never" happen.

Good call brother.

[098poi]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

Good call brother.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I just bought the print edition of the Racing Form, and I'm shocked the number of writers who are throwing out the "statistic" that Exaggerator cannot win because no 2nd place Derby finisher has won the Derby since Prairie Bayou in 1993, and only three have done so since 1960.

This is just an absurd example of the tendency of handicappers to create "statistics" based on tiny Triple Crown sample sizes that are clearly due to variance.

First of all, there's nothing special about running second in the Derby. Some horses who did so were excellent horses (Easy Goer, Summer Squall). Other horses who did so were nobodies (Commanding Curve, Golden Soul). Evaluating the statistic, rather than the individual horses, is ridiculous. Obviously, Easy Goer and Summer Squall had a much higher chance of winning the Preakness than Commanding Curve or Golden Soul did.

Second, 56 Preaknesses (starting in 1960) sounds like a lot, but really is a tiny sample sizes. When Sheldon Kovitz and Andrew Beyer first developed their speed figures, they used the data set from a year's worth of races in New York to develop the par times-- in those days that would have been about 180 race days with nine race cards, or 1620 races! If they had simply looked at 56 races, do you think their calculations would have been accurate? This is a problem with ALL Triple Crown stats, and is a reason why we keep seeing things that NEVER used to happen (favorites winning the Derby, horses with bad dosage winning the Derby, horses without good 2 year old form winning the Derby, 2 year old champions winning the Derby, Breeders' Cup Juvenile winners winning the Derby, horses without sufficient prep races at 3 winning the Derby) happen with regularity.

Third, let's look at some of the horses who lost the Preakness after finishing 2nd in the Derby. Easy Goer, in 1989, lost by a nose in a head-bob. Yet that loss counts equally in the stat to Firing Line running up the track two years ago. Similarly, Captain Bodget lost a three horse photo in 1997 to Silver Charm and Free House.

A number of the second place finishers finished second to the Derby winner again in the Preakness, which actually DOES NOT necesssarily suggest they were bad bets, because if something had happened to the Derby winner, they would have won. These include Bodemeister losing to I'll Have Another, Menifee losing to Charismatic, Victory Gallop losing to Real Quiet, Easy Goer, of course, losing to Sunday Silence, Bet Twice losing to Alysheba, Alydar losing to Affirmed, Sham losing to Secretariat, and Arts and Letters losing to Majestic Prince.

So it sounds bad. Like it never happens. The second place finisher in the Derby never wins the Preakness. But this is perfectly clear that this is just a product of RANDOM STATISTICAL VARIANCE.

The lesson: stop overemphasizing small-sample stats on big races like the Triple Crown and Breeders' Cup in your handicapping. They really are just noise most of the time. Handicap based on fundamentals, not that something can "never" happen.

Jeez..Those are stats sports bettors use. In fact, they are not stats. They are trends. Horses don't do trends.
I guess if someone is being told to write a column and they don't have any solid ideas, they turn to minutiae.... In other words. CRAP.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by RXB

Again, where did anybody, never mind "a shocking number" of DRF writers say that "Exaggerator cannot win" as you claimed? They didn't, of course. You start a post about "lies" and "damned lies" with your very own willful distortion of facts.

Agree or disagree as you will with their reasoning but don't distort their words. These guys have professional reputations to upkeep.

Well, the OP batted 1.000 in finding those who wrote this nonsense.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

You apparently have never heard the phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics". It's an expression.

Where did I call any drf writer a liar?

As for their professional reputations, I'd worry more about what they published and less about the title of my post.

Don't worry about it. I caught the gist of your thread. East stuff for the NON knee jerk reaction crowd

[RXB]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Well, the OP batted 1.000 in finding those who wrote this nonsense.

Dilanesp posted his thoughts about Exaggerator and his intentions to bet the horse BEFOREHAND so good for him. I don't recall you doing any such thing. Would you be piping now in if Exaggerator had lost? I'm guessing "no."

Add this one to that running total, notice how little it changes the overall trend, and note that since I first posted those stats prior to the 2012 edition, three of the five Ky Derby winners repeated their wins in the Preakness.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by RXB

Dilanesp posted his thoughts about Exaggerator and his intentions to bet the horse BEFOREHAND so good for him. I don't recall you doing any such thing. Would you be piping now in if Exaggerator had lost? I'm guessing "no."

Add this one to that running total, notice how little it changes the overall trend, and note that since I first posted those stats prior to the 2012 edition, three of the five Ky Derby winners repeated their wins in the Preakness.

nope. I had no dog in this fight.
I am looking at this strictly from the standpoint of the media coverage.
What I sometimes get aggravated about is when some member of the media who gets paid rather well, has to resort to obscure stats or if in electronic media, talk a lot but don't say much.
Perhaps we could have all stepped back and looked at the musings as a conversation piece rather than information one should use as handicapping tool.
In any event, I can be pretty cold to media people that either bore me or leaving me scratching my head as if to say.."what the hell did he or she just say"....or "gee thanks for that information, Capt Obvious"

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by RXB

Dilanesp posted his thoughts about Exaggerator and his intentions to bet the horse BEFOREHAND so good for him. I don't recall you doing any such thing. Would you be piping now in if Exaggerator had lost? I'm guessing "no."

Add this one to that running total, notice how little it changes the overall trend, and note that since I first posted those stats prior to the 2012 edition, three of the five Ky Derby winners repeated their wins in the Preakness.

That's all you're doing is piping up.

Piping up before the race and now wrong.

Piping up about somebody else piping up.

Why don't you just pipe your way on to something you are right about because we've heard enough piping from you for a while! The opening poster had some good hard common sense and a lot of us agreed. I don't need to huff and puff and blow somebody's house down about every point about a single race. People like you got that call of duty. So Peter Piper Puffed a Pack of Pickled Peppers start piping yourself into oblivion!