Mall--

1- The small changes I was talking about were in wind speed and direction, not footage. Small changes in footage don't make a big difference. But when you are talking about a run of more than half a mile down a straightaway to a turn, as for those BC routes, that's a LOT of footage,

2-- The wind adjustment is reflected in the figure for the race itself-- where a 1:10 might be a 7 based purely on track speed, it might now be a 6. All the horses (including the winner) that ran under those conditions (that race) are then adjusted for their VARYING conditions (weight, ground), and beaten lengths. The rundown I see reflects all this.

3-- Ragozin and I started in the same place with a wind formula, which was to have someone do it on paper (in my case a friend who is a meteorologist). In theory, there is a square involved in the formula, which makes the effect of higher winds on final time very dramatic-- the impact of a 10 mph wind is not doubled at 20mph, it's 4 times as great (10 squared is 100, 20 squared 400). What we found in practice was that if you used that formula as is, the effect of wind was too high-- so we worked with it until we came up with a reduced percentage of the theoretical effect that is roughly correct. I couldn't even tell you what it is-- it's in the computer.

Ragozin, from what I have been told, went through exactly the same process, and also reduced the theoretical effect to make it usable-- don't know whether he uses exactly the same thing or not. But here's a key point-- WE DO THIS BY LOOKING AT THE FIGURES OF THE HORSES. Whether it is me, or Len, or anyone else, the way you know it's right is by looking at what effect it is having on the figures you are giving out-- which means that ultimately there is a subjective element in it.

Which means in turn that when you APPLY that formula in practice, you have to remember that. As you look at an individual race, you should make small adjustments if necessary (to the race as a whole, not individual horses), SINCE THAT IS EXACTLY THE SAME PROCESS YOU USED TO COME UP WITH THE FORMULA TO BEGIN WITH. It isn't pure science, and it doesn't come from God, or from a textbook-- that didn't work, we tried it.

So it's right to make adjustments, and that would be true even if the wind data we were using was perfect. It is not-- wind readings are estimates by trackmen taken before and after a race (they are watching the race while it is running), and wind changes speed and direction moment to moment. (I would also point out that back in the days when Ragozin was claiming quarter point accuracy-- meaning before this website existed-- he was using hourly readings from airports that were miles from the tracks).

And then there is the issue of the track being right next to a really big structure-- the grandstand. One of the great examples takes place at Aqueduct, so Miff, since you are out there every day, I'm going you to ask you to give us a report later in the week. Give us a count of how many times you see the two infield flags, which are a couple of hundred yards apart, pointing AT each other during the running of a race. It happens when the wind comes from behind the grandstand, and sucks in around the building-- same principle as an airplane wing (I think).

4-- Yes, yes, and yes, see above. We build the straightaway and turn distances into our computer model, then input wind speed and direction for the race in question. It spits out an adjusted final figure for the race.

5-- If we can, I'll have someone run the day later without wind and tell you the effect it had on each race on BC day-- keeping in mind that it will be an approximation.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2005 05:07PM by TGJB.