You too Chris ;-)
Let me be the first to congratulate Averie for - almost - having this nailed. Best price on the board is what it's all about.
Goblin's 121 RPR = (roughly) 110 BRIS, 109 BSF according to this site:
But no one else has him that high. His figures are all over the place.
I' m not trying to be a curmudgeon about this. I am really trying to wrap my head around it. I can't do the actual statistics.
But we don't know how many horses *that ran* had DIs greater than 4.00. We can see this year there are 9x as many under 4.00. To try to make my point, absurdly of course, if there had been only 8 *other* horses in those 75 years with that high DI, that would have meant that one won 50% of the time that one was entered. I'd take that. Am I making sense? So how can it be valid that "only" 8 of them won?
OR, in the case of the fillies at 2.1%, how many have ever been entered?
Some interesting stats here. As for dosage, I have come to think it is not helpful. For example, your list shows 90% of entrants with DIs below 4.00. If this is typical of past runnings, then it stands to reason that a horse with a lower DI will usually win. Would be curious to know what PERCENTAGE OF RUNNERS that had a DI above 4.00 have won, not just how many overall. For a treatise on dosage, lookup Steven A. Roman.
Absolutely correct, in my opinion. Very good example of "predictive" correlations being fallacious. The voice of reason.
Yes. Hope it's nothing. But congrats to Moreno. Ran a big race.
I suppose it's too much too hope for - dare I say it? - Martin G. instead.
You are right. Also, Victor did seem to fumble around for the whip in mid-stretch, finally getting it to his right hand, but too late. Not sure it would have changed anything. All credit to SB and Mike Smith (who should be made to gain about 10 pounds!) :-)
Copyright © 2010 -
other passionate horse racing fans!