I would like to make one point about a difference between various figures makers that I believe accounts for some of the patterns in the figures we have noticed in recent years.

When some figure makers attempt to interpret results they generally think it is more likely the winner ran a figure approximating its "expected" performance (or slightly better) and some of the others runners (especially those well beaten) ran a figure equal to or "SLOWER" than what was "expected".

The reason for that is that if you believe in the impact of trips other than just ground lost (meaning pace, position, bias, quality of competition etc...) you would tend to think that a horse maximizes its figure when it gets a perfect all around trip against easy opponents. It would therefore run a bit slower against more competitive horses, against more competitive paces, when it's out of position etc...

That type of thinking will generally lead to flat figures over the years.

On the flip side, if your assumption is that some of these well beaten horses ran to their expected figures regardless of positon, pace, and competitive quality issues, your figures will tend to get faster and faster over time because the only way some of the figures can make any sense is if you assume the winner ran quite a bit faster then expected.

I am talking about a very minor and slow process, but one that IMO certainly exists. I see it all the time.

Without making a judgement, I'm almost certain this is one factor in the different figure trends we've seen between various popular figure makers over the years.



Post Edited (11-06-04 16:32)