Re: California Chrome now 1 to 3.5 to not win Derby (626 Views)
Posted by:
TreadHead (IP Logged)
Date: April 22, 2014 10:35AM
No worries here at all, as I find debating the "accuracy" of figures to be an extremely abstract concept to start with that is almost impossible to prove. There are several different shades of attempting to analyze this from:
1) Horses running over the same track that previously ran on the same track, but on different days
to
2) Horses coming from completely different tracks each going to a brand new track and facing each other.
In scenario 1, you might be able to make some sort of arguments about the accuracy figures in a debate over who got the variant more "right" on those individual days, but it still doesn't account for growth, improvement, or new ailments that may be impacting performance that day which means you are making an apples to oranges comparison in trying to justify if that horse's previous figure was really "correct" or not based on what happened today. Seems more like art than science.
In scenario 2, there's just too many variables in play to be able to make an argument that previous figures were "wrong" based on any results. If a horse ships to Churchill and hates it, it doesn't necessarily mean that all his previous good figures were "wrong". Conversely, if he ships there and loves it, it doesn't meant that all his previous slower figures were "wrong".
Or if a horse is trying a sloppy surface for the first time. Or a new distance/surface combo.
All that said, if you'd like to go on the record about what figures you see you are certain are "wrong" and some detailed reasoning behind it other than taking annoying pot-shot drive-bys and simply saying "not even close!", I'd love to hear more about this methodology and line of thinking and how you can come up with a firm opinion on how recently run figures are wrong before the next set of races has even been run.