Brohamer

[Tim Y]

Two that missed with this pattern on 12/2 BOTH were suspect
3rd race - Finger Lakes - December 02, 2008

Off at: 1:10 Race Type: Claiming
Age Restriction: Three Year Old and Upward
Sex Restriction: Fillies and Mares
Value of Race: $9,000
Distance: One And One Sixteenth Miles
Surface Type: Dirt Track Condition: Sloppy
Winning Time: 1:52.55
Pgm Horse Jockey Win Place Show
7 To Kil For Gabriel Suarez 18.60 7.70 5.00
3 It's Our Turn Jeremias Flores 7.10 4.60
5 Strider's Forest Clive T. Beech 8.30
Also ran: 4 - Credit At Tiffanys , 8 - Brilliant Sky , 2 - Double Love , 6 - Take the Rate , 1 - Emerald Princess

Winning Time: 1:12.82
Pgm Horse Jockey Win Place Show
2 Short Time Affair Michael A. Davila, Jr. 3.90 2.30 2.10
6 Life Runner Elaine Castillo 3.90 2.30
3 Cat of Gold John A. Grabowski 2.60
Also ran: 1A - Sea Lore , 7 - Moss Creek , 4 - Mr Farnsworth , 5 - Alex the Barber , 2B - Dirty Devil
Scratched horses: City Dealer

[fasthorses]

Thanks for the reply.

Leaving the issue of "same relative pace" aside because I don't know how to judge that based on your attachment and assuming I'm understanding the readouts it appears to me that Credit at Tiffanys clearly meets the Total Energy decline and %Median rise standards but Life Runner seems to miss the Total Energy standard since its LTO is higher than the 2nd back.

Am I misinterpreting, misunderstanding or misreading something about this horse?

Also, when you say "BOTH were suspect" did you mean they were suspect as candidates for win because you feel they meet these declining horse standards or are you saying the are not truly declining horses or perhaps they are marginally declining horses that don't clearly meet the declining horse standards? I ask, in particular, because Life Runner -while close to the standard - appears to me at least to not quite meet the definition.

I apologize for taking so much of your time on this but I'm trying hard to get an understanding of something that's obviously important if we're able to toss a fair amount of chalk.

For that matter, does anyone besides Tim have insights into this?

[Tim Y]

Off the cuff they were . Here is another more classic that was 6/5 and ran out. THIS IS NOT A HARD AND FAST RULE but works to eliminate MANY a short priced horse. Remember there are no rules

The same thing happened (in a more subtle way) to Street Sense and Pico Central when they ran in the BC Classic and NYRA Mile respectively.

[For The Lead]

Given: For all the factors that go into the outcome of a horse race, every race is unique unto itself. There has never been a race like today’s race in the past and there will never be a race like today’s race in the future.
Questions: What were the “match-ups” in the race you selected your pace line from in comparison to today’s “match-ups”?
You know what the pace was, but what were the factors that went into the making of that pace?
Are those same factors present in today’s race?

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Charlie D
My evidence is contained on these pages

Everyone, but Tim is ignorant and clueless

Brohamers is wrong, db guys are wrong and so and so on and so on

Nope, but some people actually provide evidence to prove their position not just opinion


Position is trumped by energy distribution and will continue to be as long as the sheep follow a single guru

Fellow at Paceadvantage PROVED, through dozens of examples, that TOO SLOW an EARLY pace can give false velocity and energy distribution readouts. Once these were independently reviewed, they proved to be correct. Evidence is the only way to prove a point

_______________________________________________
So then, after being presented with the results of over 85,000 races over a period of two years, you agree that horses dropping down in class or remainning at the same class level win the large majority of races?
______________________________________________

Also, a review of "dozens" of race does not make a point valid. It takes MUCH, MUCH more information than make a point creditable.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

I never found a FU that addressed the way I profile. At EACH track, at EACH DIRT distance (doesn't work well for turf), I record the e/l of the winner from the line(s) I used to enter them. NO differentiation for sex, surface changes (muddy etc which tend to be more positive anyway) or age as it has not shown to be statistically significant other than two year olds which are MUCH more positive at each distance.

.

You're not even close if you believe there is no difference in how races are run between male and female, winners and maidens, and etc. Thousands and thousands of race results bear this out not dozens, but only a database of information can provide this type of information. Databases ARE record keeping.

[Tim Y]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

Given: For all the factors that go into the outcome of a horse race, every race is unique unto itself. There has never been a race like today’s race in the past and there will never be a race like today’s race in the future.
Questions: What were the “match-ups” in the race you selected your pace line from in comparison to today’s “match-ups”?
You know what the pace was, but what were the factors that went into the making of that pace?
Are those same factors present in today’s race?

Each line selected did not evolve in a vacuum but was effected by the match up of that day's interaction of the pace participants. The outcome was the sum result of those pressures. It is only when a horse goes wire to wire, alone on the lead, that the rest of the field is not relevant.

The specifics of a match up trump the averages of a database. Always have, always will.

[tom]

You keep referring to averages of a database. Do you understand what a database is and how it is used? I seldom use averages of anything. DB's offer so much more.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by tom

You keep referring to averages of a database. Do you understand what a database is and how it is used? I seldom use averages of anything. DB's offer so much more.

Timmy likes to talk about things people DON'T mentioned. And,no, I don't thinks he knows about data bases. He kept one (I don't know how well) for 7 years and trashed it.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

Each line selected did not evolve in a vacuum but was effected by the match up of that day's interaction of the pace participants. The outcome was the sum result of those pressures. It is only when a horse goes wire to wire, alone on the lead, that the rest of the field is not relevant.

The specifics of a match up trump the averages of a database. Always have, always will.

Good job, Tim. You skated right over the point to the questions. Let's try again.

Whatever pace line you have selected brings with it the "match-ups" from the race the horse was in THAT day. If the same "match-ups" are not present in today's race, the pace line is not valid. Since you do not know what the "match-ups" were in the race from which the pace line was taken, how can you say it is a representative line for today's race?

Remember to keep you answer confined to the topic. There is nothing here about databases or Beyer numbers, therefore nothing trumps anything. Pure and simple, this is just a straight up "match-up" question.