Arlington Race 8

[Bob Cochran]

The term "chaos race" can mean many things, and of course, is subjective.

I consider chaos in racing and other venues as a condition which has instability
and has a low probability of predicting an orderly outcome or result when
comparing the variants.

example: route turf race consisting of more than half the field with no turf
or route experience.

A field of horses with many lines, no wins , and also few running lines which
qualify as useable pacelines .

All races in which all of horses fail to meet the top conditions for which
the race was written.

These are only a few examples, but the main point being, it's a race wherein no logical conclusion can be reached using standard handicapping procedures.

There is no "one" answer which defines a chaos race.
Take your pick.

Hope this helps,
Bob Cochran

[reckless]

Bob, for your reply.

As primarily a longshot devotee, I like it when there is no logical order to things. I've always felt that if the race is indeed 'wide open' then why take a short price and bet the favorites?

This approach has helped me cash some nice-priced mutuels over the years but has also resulted in some horrible results, such as the time in the late 80s when a 4-5 favorite at old Atlantic City Race Course was 1-for-45 lifetime!!

I jumped into that spot with both fists, and when that rat won by five, the thump you heard was me banging my head against the Coke machine.

I never felt so stupid in my life (up to that point, of course).

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by reckless

Bob, for your reply.

horrible results, such as the time in the late 80s when a 4-5 favorite at old Atlantic City Race Course was 1-for-45 lifetime!!

I jumped into that spot with both fists, and when that rat won by five, the thump you heard was me banging my head against the Coke machine.

I never felt so stupid in my life (up to that point, of course).

I was there. I HEARD that thump!!

[tfm]

This is like the blind leading the blind here. Dude goes FOUR deep in a 7 horse field and still can't pick the winner. After the race, he explains it by deeming it a CHAOTIC race. This really makes sense.

But, if this weren't enough, rather than seeing it for what it was, that the dude hasn't a CLUE, someone else comes along and asks him to explain his CHAOS theory.

This is beyond comical.

[Bill V.]

Hi

I think you have made your point

You have an opinion on what happened in the race.
I had an opinion and blew the race even though the readouts said to bet the 7
Bob has his opinions on the race and what he saw when he made the decisions
he made, This time he too was wrong
Now Bob was asked a direct question by another member and he gave his answer
Lets respect the readers opinions. they can read and gather them selfs and we all can learn and move on
Hopefully next time we all win

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by tfm

This is like the blind leading the blind here. Dude goes FOUR deep in a 7 horse field and still can't pick the winner. After the race, he explains it by deeming it a CHAOTIC race. This really makes sense.

But, if this weren't enough, rather than seeing it for what it was, that the dude hasn't a CLUE, someone else comes along and asks him to explain his CHAOS theory.

This is beyond comical.

Actually, I think most people following Bob's posts since he started putting up races he labeled "chaos races" http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6050 knew this was a chaos race in advance. Obviously, you are not one of the people following his posts, at least not for the purpose of gathering information on an old idea. (new, to those not familiar with it)

I don't know this to be 100% true, but I don't think it was Bob who created the chaos race theory. This is something that has been around for quite some time.

Here's some more information for you on "Chaos Races", taken from an internet handicapping site.
If you use a computer program to crunch raw data into some type of final rating - and you have chosen a good and representative race from which to enter the data (that is, you've avoided the "garbage in - garbage out" problem) then any favorite that rates poorly in those numbers should be considered as a potentially weak favorite.

When a horse has shown that it can't or won't run to the pars, or pace demands of today's race - how could it possibly be considered for favoritism?

A response might be, "But what if they're all a bunch of nags and none of 'em can run?"

Okay - then you have what's been termed a "chaos" race - hard to figure, hard to handicap, and hard to predict. In that kind of race where every runner is weak, the favorite becomes a solid bet-against candidate

[Tim Y]

Basing Ray Talbout's, Pittsburgh Phil's, Andy Beyer's. or ANYONE'S abilities on a single contest means NOTHING.

Say I am living in Belgium and I pay to see Alan Iverson play basketball in an exhibition game in Paris. I have read about him, know his abilities and style of play, but when I SAW him he was lackluster. Am I to conclude all the accolade about him are false or was he just regressing to the mean as all players do at times? SAMPLE ERROR abounds in life and sports. NO ONE is correct even half of the time.

Judge someone in the long term......