Just finished putting in another four days worth of results from Keeneland.  As of today I have nine total days worth of results from Keeneland and five from Belmont.  Once I get some time I’ll add some more from Belmont or some other track to have a bigger sample size.  However, those nine days encompass 45 races so it is not an insignificant sample.

WIth the latest results in from Keeneland, it looks like this, summarized:

               Races     Wins   Beat Ordinal
Nonpoly      45         12          17
Poly            84         11          29                                          

With this new data, it is even more compelling that speed is not hampered by the polytrack surface.  E-ponies top speed score is actually outrunning his ordinal position more often on Polytrack than over the Belmont surface.  Winners still lag, but there is certainly insufficient data to state (as Mr Beyer did) that the Polytrack surface shows any favoritism towards early or late speed. 

I’m not saying that the Polytrack surface actually works completely opposite to what Mr. Beyer suggests (that it favors speed).  I’m just saying that there is no conclusion to be made at all.  It would be purely conjecture to say anything about it at all.  The data says there is no case for it, which is what I suspected all along. Â

Here’s my update on the polytrack surface at Keeneland. 

 I recorded results for the last five days at Keeneland and Belmont.  I measured how many times my top speed score (as determined by e-ponies.com) won a race and how many times my top speed score outran his ordinal position.  Outrunning the ordinal means that if my top speed score was the fourth choice in the morning line, he would have to have run better than fourth to outrun his ordinal position. 

Here is the data in tabled format:

                 Races       Wins      Outran Ordinal
Nonpoly      45             12           17
Poly            47              4            16

This data would indicate that maybe Mr. Beyer was correct.  But to be sure, I ran a simple hypothesis test on the data.  Here are the results:

Test and Confidence Interval for Two Proportions

Sample      X      N  Sample p
1          12     45  0.266667
2           4     47  0.085106

Estimate for p(1) - p(2):  0.181560
95% CI for p(1) - p(2):  (0.0297125, 0.333408)
Test for p(1) - p(2) = 0 (vs not = 0):  Z = 2.34  P-Value = 0.019

These results indicate clearly that the number of winners from my top speed score is lower at Keeneland over the test period. 

But if Mr. Beyer’s suggestion is valid, speed horses should be handicapped from running well, as well as from winning.  So I performed the same test on the data which compared my top speed score outrunning his ordinal position.  Here are the results:

Test and Confidence Interval for Two Proportions

Sample      X      N  Sample p
1          17     45  0.377778
2          16     47  0.340426

Estimate for p(1) - p(2):  0.0373522
95% CI for p(1) - p(2):  (-0.158654, 0.233358)
Test for p(1) - p(2) = 0 (vs not = 0):  Z = 0.37  P-Value = 0.709

These results are also very clear.  They indicate that horses are not any more or less likely to outrun their ordinal position over the polytrack surface as they are over the Belmont surface.  In other words, there is no difference.

So that is the statistical conclusion.  What are the practical conclusions of this quick study?

Don’t make snap judgments about the racing surface.  While the first test shows that winners from my top speed score are lower at Keeneland compared to Belmont, there could be a variety of factors as to why the horse did not win.  The top speed horse may still have run very well.  The second test is much more indicative of the impact on speed overall.  And it definitely says that the tracks are not necessarily and different in how it favors speed.  So don’t go changing your handicapping style over a Polytrack surface. 

I will run similar tests on any polytrack surface in use.  Once we have about 300 data points for each surface the results will become very reliable.

I read with interest Andy Beyer’s article on the new polytrack surface at Keeneland.  You can too by following the following thread:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801725.html

 Any measure that purports to ensure the safety of the horses starts on a good foot with me.  These animals epitomize beauty and grace.  The collateral benefits to the sport of horse racing that come from protecting the horses’ safety are significant. 

For one it should allow horses to race more.  They can come back off shorter layoffs and go back to the barn with less discomfort.  They can’t tell us it feels better or thank us, but I’m sure they would if they could. 

For another, it will extend racing careers.  It is so frustrating seeing the world’s best three year olds retired after a successful season.  As much as I hate to see it, I really can’t be too critical of a decision to retire a Derby or Travers or BC Classic winner.  The risk of injury is so high, and I’ve never owned an animal that was worth 20 million dollars, so I really can’t pretend as if I know whether or not I would let my 20 million dollar horse race into his four year old season.  But I do know that my decision to continue to race him would be easier if the threat of injury were significantly lower.

I’m not ready to agree that the Polytrack surface significantly reduces injuries to thoroughbreds but the data is very encouraging so far.  I’m optimistic.

Mr. Beyer suggests that the new Polytrack surface has changed the game.   He suggests that the new surface hurts the chances of the speed horses.  Using passive observation from the first nine days of racing at Keeneland, Mr. Beyer suggest that the jury is out and the track is completely different from a handicapping perspective. 

For a numbers guy, Andy could have graced us with some data to go with his observations.  Because I’m not buying it.  At least not without seeing some statistical proof. 

I’m not holding my breath for Andy to provide it so I will do my own.  All I need is a set of data to benchmark the results at Keeneland against.  The statistical test I will use is a simple two-proportion hypothesis test.  One data set will be from Belmont Park.  The other data set will be from Keeneland.  The null hypothesis will be that the proportion of speed favoring horses winning at Belmont is the same as the proportion of speed favoring horses winning at Keeneland. 

Check back in a week.

I’ll start with speed in the Derby, since we are seven months away… it will give us all some time to stew on it…

There is a common misconception that speed “just happens” in the Derby.  Here’s why that cannot be true.

Imagine you buy a horse for a million and a half bucks, and then you hire a top notch trainer, and he wins a couple of races so you start to think he might have a shot at the big dance.  So you and the high-priced trainer carefully plan his Derby preps.  He continues to run well… Things are looking good. 

Over his short racing career, your horse has developed a racing style and it is one that appears to work well.  You probably have a jockey that knows how to ride your horse to best suit his natural running style.

So now we fast forward to the Derby and your horse finds himself going a furlong farther than he has ever gone, up against likely 19 other horses - the biggest field he has ever faced, and the purse is the biggest ever.  Oh and let’s throw in the future stud fees for the horse that wins.  Millions on the line. 

Is it remotely feasible that the trainer will suggest sending the horse out at an insane pace, or tell the jockey to keep the horse close to an insane pace?  Ridiculous!  Can you imagine the trainer suggesting you make your horse “the rabbit” to set up the race for another horse in his barn?  I don’t think so!

In fact it is far more likely that the trainer and owner will want to get their horses the “perfect ride” as many suggest is always a prerequisite for winning the Derby.  I honestly can’t remember the last time the Derby winner didn’t get a write up that didn’t include the expression “pefect ride.”  Can’t honestly remember the last time I read something like, “Boy sure didn’t expect that horse to run that much out of character” in winning the Derby.

So why do so many people expect the Derby to have a hot pace?

Well… big fields do juice up the pace a bit.  It is simple math.  Usually 3-4 stalkers in a normal field, now there are 8.  Someone has to get shoved back and those that don’t have to work pretty hard to not get shoved back.  Horses caught wide on the turn have to work that much harder to catch up.  These influences will increase the pace.  It is pretty much common sense.  But it is a function of the size of the field, not the fact that it is the Derby.

And then there is the Derby distance.  These horses are three year olds.  They likely have not gone this distance before.  Maybe one or two at most have done so.  The extra distance takes its toll on these young horses and really makes a dramatic showing when the pace does collapse.  But it is as much the added distance as it is the pace.  Even a normal pace going the “classic” distance will often bring about a big pace collapse. 

Horses that can go the distance, leading all the way, are a serious threat in the Derby because of the factors I mentioned above.  Examples are War Emblem and Sinister Minister.  In a race that no one expects a horse to be able to go that far, that fast, one that can can actually effect a steal.  But don’t look for them to run any faster than they have to in taking the lead. 

More later… we have seven months to discuss it.

When someone takes away something you like, it is easy to find fault with the decision that took it away.  You see this sort of behavior in children, but adults do it too.  So the government takes away internet gambling (to some extent) and there are lots of people screaming about it and finding fault with the decision.

 I can do without the online poker.  I enjoy poker a great deal but in person is a lot more fun anyway.  I just got back from a business trip and got to spend some time at a no-kidding real casino.  I played some poker and realized (again) that online poker and real poker are two very different games.  I think it has something to do with the pace of the game.  Online is much faster, and requires less skill, IMHO. 

My site doesn’t really need the advertising revenue from the online casinos either.  For one thing I think i will continue to be allowed to carry the banners and for another I think the casinos will remain willing and able to spend money to advertise.  So I can avoid being biased against the decision because of lost advertising revenue.

 So how does this decision affect me?

I’m embarassed that the legislation had to be bundled with some other (completely unrelated) garbage just to get it passed.  In other words, it didn’t have enough legs to stand on its own.

I’m embarassed that the goverment is pretending that the law is masquerading as a law to protect the US citizen against gambling addiction, yet is excludes my favorite form of gambling, horse racing.  If it was about protecting us from ourselves, it would do a better job. 

 There is also the (ridiculous) assertion that these offshore entities cannot be regulated by US laws and thus we are all vulnerable to fraud if we frequent them.  The fact of the matter is that given the nature of these sites, they have to work that much harder to be clean and operated on the up and up because if there is even the slightest hint of an unfair game, visitors will leave like rats leaving a sinking ship.  In other words, it was pretty much self-polcing already. 

I’m embarassed that the law appears to be supported by the conservatives in Congress, the group I tend to relate to the most closely.  It just seems to me we could be a lot more clever than just putting a pinch on online gambling.  It appears to be an industry that has a strong will to exist, not unlike the alcohol production industry in the days of prohibition.  Surely there is a way to regulate and tax the activity.  Being October, it stinks of a pre-election display of party morality.Â