Watched Flower Alley work this morning

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by oracle80

All I know is that I would rather have Todd Pletcher in my corner on Saturday than anyone else. Apparently ole Tommy boy's meet isn't going so well. Guy has all that valuabel anbd expensive horseflesh in his barn and after 4 weeks he still sadly only has one win. I know you all couldnt wait to jump ugly on me after i ridiculed his job with Songster. Appears I know more as usual. one win in 4 weeks, geez thats just swell.

Who cares how he's done for the last month? I care how he's doing for the year. For the year, he's winning at a 20% clip. That's the only thing that matters.

With a baseball player(a pitcher), does it matter if he starts the year 6-1? Does it matter if he wins his last 4 starts of the year? If the pitcher's record is 22-8 at the end of the year, that means he had a good year. It doesn't matter how he did at the beginning, the middle, or the end. His overall record tells you more than any short stretch. You know that, so why do you bring up these silly, short-term stats.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Who cares how he's done for the last month? I care how he's doing for the year. For the year, he's winning at a 20% clip. That's the only thing that matters.

With a baseball player(a pitcher), does it matter if he starts the year 6-1? Does it matter if he wins his last 4 starts of the year? If the pitcher's record is 22-8 at the end of the year, that means he had a good year. It doesn't matter how he did at the beginning, the middle, or the end. His overall record tells you more than any short stretch. You know that, so why do you bring up these silly, short-term stats.

Fine, then hes in a slump, do you not go against guys in a slump as a rule???

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Fine, then hes in a slump, do you not go against guys in a slump as a rule???

I wouldn't even call it a slump. I would call it a short-term fluctuation. Sure he is only 1 for 16, but he has five 2nd place finishes and a few 3rd place finishes. He's a 20% trainer, so you would expect him to have 3 wins from his 16 starts. He only has 1 win, so he has 2 less wins than he should. That's not really a big deal. That kind of thing happens all the time. A 20% trainer will not win with 2 out of every 10 starters in the short-run. there will be all kinds of fluctautions. He may win 4 out of 10 and then go 0 for his next 10. But in the long-run he will win 20% which is 2 out of 10.

If I flip a coin right now 100 times, it would not be surprising if there are periods where heads comes up 4 times in a row. That would not be unusual. The only thing that would be unusual would be if one side came much more than the other side over time. If I flipped the coin 1000 times and heads came up 600 times, you would know that there is something wrong with the coin.

But if I flipped a coin only 10 times and one side came up 7 times, I wouldn't assume that there was anything wrong with the coin. I would just assume that it was a short-term fluctuation

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I wouldn't even call it a slump. I would call it a short-term fluctuation. Sure he is only 1 for 16, but he has five 2nd place finishes and a few 3rd place finishes. He's a 20% trainer, so you would expect him to have 3 wins from his 16 starts. He only has 1 win, so he has 2 less wins than he should. That's not really a big deal. That kind of thing happens all the time. A 20% trainer will not win with 2 out of every 10 starters in the short-run. He may win 4 out of 10 and then go 0 for his next 10. But in the long-run he will win 20% which is 2 out of 10.

If I flip a coin right now 100 times, it would not be surprising if there are periods where heads comes up 4 times in a row. That would not be unusual. The only thing that would be unusual would be if one side came much more than the other side over time. If I flipped the coin 1000 times and heads came up 600 times, you would know that there is something wrong with the coin.

But if I flipped a coin only 10 times and one side came up 7 times, I wouldn't assume that there was anything wrong with the coin. I would just assume that it was a short-term fluctuation

Did you factor in todays losses as well?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Did you factor in todays losses as well?

No, I didn't. I guess that means he's 1 for 18. If it gets much worse than this, I would have to agree with you that he may be in a little slump.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

No, I didn't. I guess that means he's 1 for 18. If it gets much worse than this, I would have to agree with you that he may be in a little slump.

I already knew that you hadn't. I've been keeping track and knew what he was already.

[Sightseek]

I wouldn't bank on the in a slump theory....even Desmoreax wins one occasionally.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If I flip a coin right now 100 times, it would not be surprising if there are periods where heads comes up 4 times in a row. That would not be unusual. The only thing that would be unusual would be if one side came much more than the other side over time. If I flipped the coin 1000 times and heads came up 600 times, you would know that there is something wrong with the coin.

But if I flipped a coin only 10 times and one side came up 7 times, I wouldn't assume that there was anything wrong with the coin. I would just assume that it was a short-term fluctuation

Actually if you had enough people flip coins 1000 times, you would absolutely expect to have some people get heads 600 times. For all you stat people, the Chi-squared test gives exact numbers of this probablility.

Cmon I know there is a female out there that knows this stuff. I hope she reads this and does the math. Then we need to talk.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Actually if you had enough people flip coins 1000 times, you would absolutely expect to have some people get heads 600 times. For all you stat people, the Chi-squared test gives exact numbers of this probablility.

Cmon I know there is a female out there that knows this stuff. I hope she reads this and does the math. Then we need to talk.

Unfortunately, pgardn, I'm already married.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Unfortunately, pgardn, I'm already married.

So am I. I dont want any opposite gender talk. I want math talk woman. Im gelded and whupped every other way.

I love tote boards. Thats all I will say. I love em. Do tote boards turn you on?

You can answer that tomorrow, to bed for me. I gotta figure out the damn derivative by limit proof again early tomorrow. I always make some stupid mistake and I cant have these brilliant little 17 and 18 year olds catch me every darn year. The heavy math I dont need for physics. The power rule and U substitution is really all I need from calculus. And integration of course,but that will come in time.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by pgardn

So am I. I dont want any opposite gender talk. I want math talk woman. Im gelded and whupped every other way.

I love tote boards. Thats all I will say. I love em. Do tote boards turn you on?

You can answer that tomorrow, to bed for me. I gotta figure out the damn derivative by limit proof again early tomorrow. I always make some stupid mistake and I cant have these brilliant little 17 and 18 year olds catch me every darn year. The heavy math I dont need for physics. The power rule and U substitution is really all I need from calculus. And integration of course,but that will come in time.

Holy shiat... it is way too late (or early depending upon where you are) for that kind of math talk...

Let's stick to the opposite gender talk.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by pgardn

So am I. I dont want any opposite gender talk. I want math talk woman. Im gelded and whupped every other way.

I love tote boards. Thats all I will say. I love em. Do tote boards turn you on?

You can answer that tomorrow, to bed for me. I gotta figure out the damn derivative by limit proof again early tomorrow. I always make some stupid mistake and I cant have these brilliant little 17 and 18 year olds catch me every darn year. The heavy math I dont need for physics. The power rule and U substitution is really all I need from calculus. And integration of course,but that will come in time.

I love it when you talk dirty.

Seriously, though, my brother started to major in physics, but realized it wasn't the physics he loved; it was the math, so he does love the heavy stuff (he finally majored in statistics). I actually loved calculus, especially... story problems. Really.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Remember when Corinthian ran by First Samurai down in Florida like he was standing still and everyone thought he was a machine?

Same ****, different time of the year.......

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Who cares how he's done for the last month? I care how he's doing for the year. For the year, he's winning at a 20% clip. That's the only thing that matters.

With a baseball player(a pitcher), does it matter if he starts the year 6-1? Does it matter if he wins his last 4 starts of the year? If the pitcher's record is 22-8 at the end of the year, that means he had a good year. It doesn't matter how he did at the beginning, the middle, or the end. His overall record tells you more than any short stretch. You know that, so why do you bring up these silly, short-term stats.

I'm sorry, but this theory doesn't make any sense. The Travers will be run THIS WEEKEND. Chances are, Albertrani will still be in a slump then. What does it matter if he won at a 20% clip a few months ago? This month, at this meet, he is ice cold.

I just think of it like fantasy baseball. If Jeter, for example, cools down for a while and isn't hitting with the same average that he has been all season, I'll sit him. I don't care if he's been hitting .340 up until now, if he's hitting .250 in August, he's on the bench with all the other cold players. But if A-Rod starts heating up, I don't care is his average has been in the mid-2's all season, he's hitting well now and that's what matters. Races don't take place over the course of the year, they take place over the course of a few minutes. And in those few minutes, Albertrani will still be cold.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

I'm sorry, but this theory doesn't make any sense. The Travers will be run THIS WEEKEND. Chances are, Albertrani will still be in a slump then. What does it matter if he won at a 20% clip a few months ago? This month, at this meet, he is ice cold.

I just think of it like fantasy baseball. If Jeter, for example, cools down for a while and isn't hitting with the same average that he has been all season, I'll sit him. I don't care if he's been hitting .340 up until now, if he's hitting .250 in August, he's on the bench with all the other cold players. But if A-Rod starts heating up, I don't care is his average has been in the mid-2's all season, he's hitting well now and that's what matters. Races don't take place over the course of the year, they take place over the course of a few minutes. And in those few minutes, Albertrani will still be cold.

The original argument wasn't about whether he is cold right now. Oracle's original argument was that the fact that Albertrani is not doing well at Saratoga proves that he's not a good trainer. My point was that his record for the year is more indicative of his abilty than his record for the month.

[hockey2315]

O sorry. . . I thought it had more to do with the Travers and that Mike was saying that since Albertrani's cold and Pletcher's hot (as always), his horse might have a better shot this weekend. Guess I should've read a little closer. . .

[Gander]

I think what Mike was saying was that it isnt a bad time to take a shot against a very heavy favorite in Bernardini, who is trained by a guy who has only won 1 race this whole meet, a walkover which shouldnt even count as a win. Considering his opposition comes into this off a thrashing of a pretty good Haskell field trained by a guy who doesnt know what a slump is.
Thats all. In my opinion BGC will be overbet this weekend.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

O sorry. . . I thought it had more to do with the Travers and that Mike was saying that since Albertrani's cold and Pletcher's hot (as always), his horse might have a better shot this weekend. Guess I should've read a little closer. . .

By the way, I think that when an athlete is in a slump it is very significant. I would not feel very confident in an athelte who has been in a slump for a month.

But with a trainer, I'm not sure how significant a 1 for 16 slump is. A 20% trainer would only win 3 times out of 15 in the long-run. It's not really a big deal if a trainer is 1 for 16. that's only two less wins than he would normally have. He could easily win a few races the next week and be right back on track. With an athlete, there may be a good reason as to why they're in a slump. Their stroke may be a little bit off or whatever. With Albertrani, I doubt he is doing anything different than normal. It's probably just a fluke.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

By the way, I think that when an athlete is in a slump it is very significant. I would not feel very confident in an athelte who has been in a slump for a month.

But with a trainer, I'm not sure how significant a 1 for 16 slump is. A 20% trainer would only win 3 times out of 15 in the long-run. It's not really a big deal if a trainer is 1 for 16. that's only two less wins than he would normally have. He could easily win a few races the next week and be right back on track. With an athlete, there may be a good reason as to why they're in a slump. Their stroke may be a little bit off or whatever. With Albertrani, I doubt he is doing anything different than normal. It's probably just a fluke.

hes 1-18 once again Rupert.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

By the way, I think that when an athlete is in a slump it is very significant. I would not feel very confident in an athelte who has been in a slump for a month.

But with a trainer, I'm not sure how significant a 1 for 16 slump is. A 20% trainer would only win 3 times out of 15 in the long-run. It's not really a big deal if a trainer is 1 for 16. that's only two less wins than he would normally have. He could easily win a few races the next week and be right back on track. With an athlete, there may be a good reason as to why they're in a slump. Their stroke may be a little bit off or whatever. With Albertrani, I doubt he is doing anything different than normal. It's probably just a fluke.

But he's 1-18 at the biggest meet of the year with Darley horses. A great trainer like Pletcher has his horses (usually) geared up at the top of their game at Saratoga. You could argue that he's going up against tougher competition at Saratoga, but with the amount of talent at his disposal 1-18 just doesn't cut it.