classhandicapper wrote:

> It is apparent you do not want to not ackowledge or discuss
> the way some things impact race results and times because they
> can't be measured with the same precision as other factors. You
> would rather simply ignore them.

I've been happy to discuss them. I won't accept your theories without back-up, and I won't accept hand picked red-boarded examples as significant, since it's really easy to find examples that "prove" the opposite, like the failure of the other closers in the Travers to run well.


>
> Personally, I don't know a single handicapper with more than
> a few years of experience that doesn't acknowledge the impact
> of pace on both results and time.

I know LOTS of PROFESSIONAL handicappers who disagree, with the exception of the extreme examples I mentioned in the early stages of this discussion.


>
> It really doesn't matter whose figures you are using. You can
> usually get a reasonable guage on who the contenders are going
> in even if the figures you are using aren't as accurate as
> "your figures".

Clearly not true, or so many pros would not be paying more for our stuff (and Ragozin for that matter), they would just use Beyer. I would estimate that at least 80% of the pros use one set of sheets or the other.



>
> You then watch the race race development. Somtimes the
> extremeness of the pace is very apparent - so is its effect on
> the outcome.

Ah yes, "sometimes", "extremeness", "apparent", and "effect". Nothing like hard facts.



>
> Second, it is also abundently clear that two brilliant speed
> handicappers can subjectively analyze the results of a few
> races and come to different conclusions about how fast the
> track was and what the figure should really be.

Take out "brilliant" and I agree with you. So?



>
> Third, after you make your subjective figure, if the way the
> horses run coming out of that race indicates that the figure
> was wrong, you are better off fixing it than making excuses for
> every horse or saying they all improved.


Even if I accepted the idea that it's a good idea to go back and change figures, it would be done using future FIGURES, meaning super accurate ones using weight and ground, not just the subjective viewing of future races. And I certainly wouldn't be basing it on what horses did in their next start, which would be anti-theory, since the whole reason we put figures on graphs is that horses do NOT put in the same performance every time out.






>
> Grand Hombre ran exactly as I expected. He's a pretty good
> horse that spotted the winner a few lengths because of his wide
> trip. That was good enough to beat him. The other horses
> coming out of the PA Derby finished up the track - further
> indicating that the PA Derby was not as fast as thought.


Please. See above, and AGAIN, all you have to do is give us examples before the race. There is a ROTW every week, feel free.



>
> Toccet also ran horribly (though we all agreed he would have
> to improve a real lot to run well in that spot) further
> indicating the PA Derby was not that strong.


Huh? If anything it indicates TOCCET is not that strong, which is one reason the Pa. Derby was a great betting race.



>
> In fact, the only horse to run huge coming out of the PA
> Derby was Dynever who made a huge close off a slow pace into a
> reasonable fast race - because he didn't like the mud the night
> of the PA Derby and did not fire that night.


Absolutely, that proves it. Those of us who thought it was a GOOD performance were disproved when he ran back to roughly that figure (probably) at the Meadowlands. That aside, see if you can count the assumptions and subjective judgements in that one sentence. I came up with eight.



TGJB