DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 1859
May 4th, 2017 at 4:48:01 PM permalink
KEE1, leaving aside the difficulty I think you've mentioned yourself before, maybe last year in one of these threads, about wrongly assuming "this-mud" = "that-mud" = "other-mud" = "anything-wet" the reasoning in that decision tree seems perfectly sensible to me, or it would, if I thought I had some idea of what is being measured by the numerical output of a Tomlinson rating... which I don't. Some of the questions I'd want to be digging into, if I was looking into using that or adopting some other similar one for myself, would include:

  • Is it attempting to quantify the extensive data on the collective performance of the progeny of a sire, or trying to use the race performances of the sire itself? I've found that in time, the progeny can provide significant data with a useful degree of predictive value for some purposes. Maybe more so for other things than this, but still a significant accumulation of data. But if instead of that, one is attempting to extrapolate traits directly from the actual race record of a sire, that will almost always end up being very flaky, based in large part on radically insufficient data, and also multiple factors in his individual life and unique race career that are not inheritable.

  • Does it include data from the female line, and if so, how? Obviously, the dam provides half the genetic material for creation of the foal, so including it is essential, though sometimes foolishly ignored by some who look at pedigrees. But a mare will never produce enough foals in her lifetime to make the performance of her progeny a useful metric at all. So does he then go to the sire of the dam, and if so how does he weight the data to account for the weaker effect of that damsire (and traits tending to be passed to his progeny) being an additional generation removed from the creation of this foal?

  • Then, and only then, assuming I've concluded the foregoing methodology may be sound for a given rating system, I start to get to the point of what type of progeny performance is made relevant, how much, under what circumstances. Simple win percent? Or otherwise further quantifying relatively "good" or "poor" performances? With any adjustment for competition class level and field size?

  • What, if anything, is done to account for the difference between established sires with extensive progeny data versus younger sires with much more limited data that also tend to be bred to a very different kind of mare during the first several years their stud services are put on the market?

I don't know the answers to any of these and other things cooked into the three digit "Wet" number published in the Form, so that's why that line in the corner of the DRF's (and some others') PPs remains a random ink blot for me. This has probably been the most difficult problem for me in the pedigree data that I do routinely use, mostly to good effect, but giving me a poor read on some newer sires, such as Pioneer of the Nile recently.

EDIT: The last sentence above ("This has probably been the most difficult...") belonged at the end of the last paragraph, but didn't stay where I told it to when I posted. Corrected.

Quote: Keeneone

So far 10 horses have already participated in a race over an "off" dirt surface.
#1 Lookin At Lee - Muddy track finished 2nd of 8 @ Churchill Downs.
#4 Untrapped - Muddy track finished 2nd of 11 @ Fairgrounds.
#8 Hence - Sloppy track finished 1st of 9 @ Oaklawn.
#9 Irap - Sloppy track finished 4th of 8 @ Santa Anita.
#10 Gunnevera - Sloppy track finished 2nd of 7 @ Gulfstream.
#11 Battle Of Midway - Wet Fast track finished 1st of 7 @ Santa Anita.
#12 Sonneteer - Good track finished 2nd of 7 @ Del Mar.
#14 Classic Empire - Sloppy track finished 1st of 8 @ Churchill Downs.
#16 Tapwrit - Sloppy track finished 1st of 7 @ Gulfstream.
#18 Gormley - Sloppy track finished 1st of 7 @ Santa Anita.

Most performed pretty well in the "off" going. The question (as already mentioned earlier in the thread) is how the others will perform if the track is not "fast" on race day. I think this is when some people will look at Tom #'s, pedigree, and mud percentages for some assistance. I will try and provide one Derby example:
Lets assume my 2 derby picks are McCraken and Always Dreaming (same morning line odds of 5/1). If the track is "fast" it is difficult to separate them. If the track comes up "off" McCraken becomes more appealing (after consulting the mud #s).

Last edited by: DrawingDead on May 4, 2017
I've had many years that I was not so successful as a player, as it is a game of skill. -Casey Stengel
Keeneone
Keeneone
Joined: Aug 16, 2014
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 548
May 4th, 2017 at 6:58:45 PM permalink
On a rainy day, bet the grey...



#3 Fast And Accurate
#16 Tapwrit

----------

The "off" track weather predictions has me rethinking the pace of the race. Jockeys/owners may look to be "in the clear" (and avoid kickback) by pushing/asking those with tactical speed early. This could enhance the pace of the race. Maybe IWCry/Battle Of Midway will look for the lead. Always Dreaming could also make a run for the front. Honest question:
Just how fast is Always Dreaming and could he make the lead in the Derby?
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 1859
May 4th, 2017 at 9:10:15 PM permalink
Quote: Keeneone

...the pace of the race...

That's been a problem to me every year for the last several KY Derbys, and I think it is a major change from past editions of the same event. For decades, when qualifying was simply by total graded stakes earnings, there would generally be several in the gate that could absolutely be counted on to be going at it eyeball to eyeball setting a very hot pace for the distance for six, seven, eight furlongs before those who might truly belong in a mile and a quarter Grade 1 took over. But in recent years the pace has been a muddle to me. I think the biggest reason for the change, which I don't care for at all, might be Churchill's decision to cook up their very own heavy handed restrictive points qualifying system, eliminating many precocious "fast as I can far as I can" type colts (along with probably all fillies) who might otherwise have taken a shot, and given their owners a thrill for about a minute and a half of a two minute race.

Cliffs Notes: Harrumph.
I've had many years that I was not so successful as a player, as it is a game of skill. -Casey Stengel
Keeneone
Keeneone
Joined: Aug 16, 2014
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 548
May 4th, 2017 at 9:27:19 PM permalink
Not that anyone asked for or should really care... My picks:

Kentucky Oaks(Fri): #12 - Daddys Lil Darling, #13 - Abel Tasman
Woodford Reserve Turf Classic (Sat): #8 - Beach Patrol, #11 - Can'thelpbelieving
Kentucky Derby(Sat): #1 - Lookin At Lee, #4 - Untrapped, #8 - Hence, #15 - McCraken, (#21 - Royal Mo)

-Lookin At Lee/Hence/Untrapped (the all Asmussen trio) are the Derby runners I have with live Futures bets. I also have Royal Mo, but he is not in the race at the moment. GLTA.
Keeneone
Keeneone
Joined: Aug 16, 2014
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 548
May 4th, 2017 at 9:47:32 PM permalink
Quote: DrawingDead

That's been a problem to me every year for the last several KY Derbys, and I think it is a major change from past editions of the same event. For decades, when qualifying was simply by total graded stakes earnings, there would generally be several in the gate that could absolutely be counted on to be going at it eyeball to eyeball setting a very hot pace for the distance for six, seven, eight furlongs before those who might truly belong in a mile and a quarter Grade 1 took over. But in recent years the pace has been a muddle to me. I think the biggest reason for the change, which I don't care for at all, might be Churchill's decision to cook up their very own heavy handed restrictive points qualifying system, eliminating many precocious "fast as I can far as I can" type colts (along with probably all fillies) who might otherwise have taken a shot, and given their owners a thrill for about a minute and a half of a two minute race.

Cliffs Notes: Harrumph.


I agree completely. The Trinniberg effect. In 2012 he pressured Bodemeister (who ran an incredible race to finish 2nd) and open the door for I'll Have Another.
The points earning change also has me believing a good fast horse (under the right conditions like an "off" track) could wire a Derby field in the near future. Possible plays to pull this off in 2017: IWC or BOM.
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 1030
May 5th, 2017 at 2:18:13 AM permalink
In this 1998 article by Beyer in the Washington Post he gives some explanation as to how the Tomlinson figures are made. It's not a complete explanation but it might be helpful. As to your question, Dead, about the use of stats from the Dam, this is directly from the article:


"Of course, every thoroughbred has two parents whose genes determine his ability, but there usually aren't enough data about a dam's offspring to draw meaningful conclusions. So Kaufman recommends this expedient: To calculate a horse's Tomlinson number, add his sire's rating to 50 percent of his maternal grandsire's rating. If a horse entered on a muddy track is by Waquoit out of a dam who is a daughter of Caveat (mud rating: 200), he gets 250 points from his sire and 100 from his female side for a total of 350. The ratings are supposed to predict the performance of horses with little or no grass or turf form. Once a horse has raced on a surface several times, of course, his record speaks for itself."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1998/12/05/a-clearer-picture-in-the-mud-or-on-the-turf/2b907a6c-9817-4d20-be8b-96a43feabdcc/?utm_term=.6f3933c4bedf
"There are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
JyBrd0403
JyBrd0403
Joined: Jan 25, 2010
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 548
May 5th, 2017 at 3:31:41 AM permalink
Quote: Keeneone

Always Dreaming could also make a run for the front. Honest question:
Just how fast is Always Dreaming and could he make the lead in the Derby?



That's a good question. As the old adage goes, "that's why the run the race".

They have things they can do besides heading for the lead, and the one thing I'm sure of is that Pletcher and Valazquez know way more then I do about where to place this horse, and I'm sure they will have that all worked out by Saturday. I won't be cursing out the jockey, whatever he decides to do.

I personally like to see this situation handled by going to the lead, rating back and dictating the race by placing yourself where you want to be. That, of course, can't be done with every horse -- not enough power from the gate, can't rate that well, in this case perhaps the mud, etc. etc. But, all things being equal, I'd prefer wasting the energy to gain the position you want, rather than having the race dictated to you. This all being for an E/P type horses, of course.

Looking at it again, you may be right, Keenone, AD may not have the power from the gate to get the lead. With Valazquez and Pletcher, I'm not too worried about them handling the situation, though, it's the mud I'm worried about. AD, is not going to get the ideal trip, whatever they decide to do, but the only real disaster would be to get squezzed, and have to check the horse while 15 other horses are coming down on you. IMO. Maybe, another good reason to not go for the lead.

Actually, reminds me of Rosie Napravnik, you didn't have to worry about jockey mistakes if she was riding. :)

Starting to get excited for Saturday. GLTA.
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 78
  • Posts: 2697
May 5th, 2017 at 7:47:53 PM permalink
Not suggesting anyone follow my lead but I threw $20 across the board on Thunder Snow. I think he is as good as most in a field that doesn't impress me.
At 20-1, why not.
It's what you do and not what you say If you're not part of the future then get out of the way
Keeneone
Keeneone
Joined: Aug 16, 2014
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 548
May 5th, 2017 at 10:43:59 PM permalink
Quote: JyBrd0403

That's a good question. As the old adage goes, "that's why the run the race".
-snip-


Good stuff JyBrd0403, run the race and lets see what happens...

I wanted to like Always Dreaming but I am not sure he is fast enough. That thought combined with a wet track and I started looking elsewhere.
----------

In the Oaks/Derby Double, Irish War Cry is the lowest payout (ie. the favorite).
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 89
  • Posts: 1030
May 6th, 2017 at 1:02:38 AM permalink
Right now, as I'm writing at 4 a.m. EST the forecast I saw for Louisville is for rain only between 10a.m. and 1p.m. If this is accurate the track will probably be pretty dry at 6:46 EST when the Derby goes off.
"There are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

  • Jump to: