Re: Street Sense BC Question? (521 Views)
Posted by:
Chuckles_the_Clown2 (IP Logged)
Date: April 18, 2007 08:48PM
"If you honestly feel a horse only ran his eyeballs out because of conditions then you should subjectively downgrade the performance, not the figure."
I don't follow that. Dirt Racing, (Please note that I said Dirt Racing intending to exclude Poly-Scam racing), requires using numbers. An effort can be downgraded, but you sure better put a number on that downgrade. If one can't knock a point off or add a point on or factor weight or ground loss or track bias and put an educated changed number upon that performance you're gonna be confused in some races. Theres nothing worse than looking at numbers everyone says are fast, but not modifying them down upon the evidence one ascertains to clearly indicate that those horses are not as fast as others say and sometimes not as fast as others in the race.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sand,
>
> I would not call the figure false but you must
> question the overall conditions in which it was
> earned.Without question, I saw a biased rail on BC
> day at CD. Don't know how TG saw it but Len
> Friedman at Rags said he did not see any rail bias
> after looking at his figs.I believe TG also uses
> figs/computer program to flag biases,I think there
> are other methods equally telling.
>
> I have done lots of research on big figs and the
> conditions in which they were earned, i.e biases,
> pace/race shape/perfect trips,track conditions and
> patterns.While very inconclusive, I did see that
> many big figs were not repeated in different
> overall conditions from the prior race.Many fig
> users automatically call it bounce when a horse
> regresses but I think bounce is correct only some
> of time and a host of other reasons also cause
> figure regression.
>
> If you honestly feel a horse only ran his eyeballs
> out because of conditions then you should
> subjectively downgrade the performance, not the
> figure.
>
>
> Mike