Re: Comments from a Ragozin User (443 Views)
Date: September 17, 2004 09:49AM
Mandown,
>Finally consider the following: A stakes horse runs in an allowance race and wins narrowly from two 6-y-o cheap claimers in what appears to be a fast time and there is no evidence of any change in the track's speed. When you make the figure you find that either the stakes horse ran 5 points off its top or one claimer ran a 6pt new top and the other a 4pt new top.
Which is more likely? That for some reason the track speed changed and the stakes horse, though winning, ran 5pts off its top or that the the track speed didn't change and the two 6-y-o claimers both ran big new tops?<
It's a tough question.
I would guess it is more likely that the stakes horse ran slower, but absent evidence of a change of track speed I would mark that race in bold print because of the lack of certainty. Then, if the subsequent performances of the claimers indicated that they did indeed improve, I would go back and change the figure.
In the past Jerry and I have disagreed on this subject. I agree with him that going back and changing figures based on subsequent performances is a very bad idea in general, but not when you weren't sure what the figure should have been beforehand and subsequent performances give you further evidence.
Post Edited (09-17-04 10:57)