Re: "The number is solid". (621 Views)
Posted by:
NormandyInvasion (IP Logged)
Date: May 20, 2015 11:31PM
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to give someone on the Rag board credit, he
> did ask Jake how "credible" their Preakness figure
> is. Jake of course said "the number is solid".
> Which is good to know. And since that's true, Jake
> will have no problem explaining how they came up
> with it, if someone would be kind enough to ask
> them. Guys, asking for an explanation is not
> "challenging" the figure.
>
> Here's the thing. The way they did it, every horse
> in the race came up 2 or more points better or (in
> all but one case) worse than both their previous
> figure AND their top, so they clearly didn't do
> the Preakness off the horses that ran in the
> Preakness. And, of course, it was pouring rain
> before (and during) the race.
>
> Think of it this way. If that had been the first
> race of the day, and they had cancelled afterward,
> would that have been how you did figures for the
> race? With the figures the horses ran having no
> correlation with the figures they had run in the
> past, and if so on what basis? If the answer to
> that question is no (which it most obviously is),
> what did Jake base the Preakness figures on? It
> can only be other races on the card-- they tied it
> to independent events.
>
> As I said, it's figure making malpractice. And I'm
> pretty sure if Ragozin was still around he
> wouldn't have screwed it up.
>
> On a lighter note, the BRIS computer generated
> figures gave Fame And Power a 108, AP 100.
Beyer likewise saw the Preakness as a worse effort than the Derby, though as you note, there's no other race to base anything on.
I think the bottom line is that no one's number can be "solid" but instead it's a race to trust your own guts and eyes about the winner and others who ran in the Preakness.