Post by shipton on Jul 23, 2022 9:51:19 GMT
Kev: I have a question, hope not too stupid, given some blackbook dogs I follow, they are really fast dogs and many times favs. Then in some grades they are at long odds and fail according. Why? if a dog can run fast in grade 5 why not in grade 4 given similar
Kev: pls don't say because other dogs run faster, I compared times and they still quite competitive yet other punters know better and it shows in the odds
visitor: but they did run faster didn't
they? yesterday
BB: Field dynamics would be my main answer to the question, but I don't think it's the only or catch-all answer.
BB: A good trainer will often find a pocket of talent for its dog to hide in, so you can find plenty of grade 5 dogs mingling with grade 4 dogs and doing well, but they're in their own silo of sorts and have less pressure early.
BB: Best way to avoid that is to benchmark from multiple metropolitan winners across provincial tracks and splice the splits together to get the true speed profile versus duration for comparison. Then you know you have a benchmark set by dogs that were really
BB: trying. Then you can look at the margins in the race and get a feel for whether times are genuine and how much of their potential their reaching from race to race.
kev: I think I know what you mean about field dynamics, will test it, with past results, it's intriguing though how the combined knowledge works in finding the likely winner, fails 55%?? of the time of course but still interesting.
BB: I think you might be dazzled by the difference between winning ratio versus time threshold ratios. Two dogs in a field might be capable of say 30.00 at The Meadows of the 525, dog A might only run faster than 30.10 30% of the time with a winning ratio of 20%, but dog B has a winning ratio of 12% but runs faster than 30.10 50% of the time. The difference is that dog A has been in easier races and won more of them, but dog B is the better bet obviously unless you find evidence it only runs that following another dog. Then there is the number of runs and the margin of error on those percentages to factor. Then there are other influences that can push those ratios up or down, like draw or early pace prospects.
BB: If you're not doing it already, maybe try looking back over past races that have had you scratching your head and then look at how many times the top 2 or 3 runners (based on time) breached a certain time threshold and then look for the pattern each time they do and see if the same pattern does or doesn't exist in the race you're reviewing. That might show you the slight of hand in the markets.
Kev: pls don't say because other dogs run faster, I compared times and they still quite competitive yet other punters know better and it shows in the odds
visitor: but they did run faster didn't
they? yesterday BB: Field dynamics would be my main answer to the question, but I don't think it's the only or catch-all answer.
BB: A good trainer will often find a pocket of talent for its dog to hide in, so you can find plenty of grade 5 dogs mingling with grade 4 dogs and doing well, but they're in their own silo of sorts and have less pressure early.
BB: Best way to avoid that is to benchmark from multiple metropolitan winners across provincial tracks and splice the splits together to get the true speed profile versus duration for comparison. Then you know you have a benchmark set by dogs that were really
BB: trying. Then you can look at the margins in the race and get a feel for whether times are genuine and how much of their potential their reaching from race to race.
kev: I think I know what you mean about field dynamics, will test it, with past results, it's intriguing though how the combined knowledge works in finding the likely winner, fails 55%?? of the time of course but still interesting.
BB: I think you might be dazzled by the difference between winning ratio versus time threshold ratios. Two dogs in a field might be capable of say 30.00 at The Meadows of the 525, dog A might only run faster than 30.10 30% of the time with a winning ratio of 20%, but dog B has a winning ratio of 12% but runs faster than 30.10 50% of the time. The difference is that dog A has been in easier races and won more of them, but dog B is the better bet obviously unless you find evidence it only runs that following another dog. Then there is the number of runs and the margin of error on those percentages to factor. Then there are other influences that can push those ratios up or down, like draw or early pace prospects.
BB: If you're not doing it already, maybe try looking back over past races that have had you scratching your head and then look at how many times the top 2 or 3 runners (based on time) breached a certain time threshold and then look for the pattern each time they do and see if the same pattern does or doesn't exist in the race you're reviewing. That might show you the slight of hand in the markets.
