hard spun ..impressed..not really

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by philcski

Cannon, recheck your stats on this one. The outside posts (10,11,12) in routes are something like 6 for 100 this year... not GP bad but pretty tough. In sprints, outside seems to be better, or at least fair, however.

I was super impressed by this performance. I know the Polytrack throws a lot of indifference into people's analysis, but it's not like he hasn't run well on traditional dirt. No matter what the surface, he was 3 wide on a solid pace and ran away when asked. The field was spread out behind him- it was a good 10-12 lengths back to 4th place... the mark of a REALLY good performance.

I couldn't kill Pino for being 3-4 wide at Oaklawn. There was nowhere to go, and why sacrifice the horse in that race when there are bigger and better objectives down the road? Take it as a learning experience, pick up a small check, and try again.

As of 3/24 post 10 in route races at TP was 12%.

[Payson Dave]

Hey Cannon,
Did everyone ship ok?? Are you back at Churchill?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Payson Dave

Hey Cannon,
Did everyone ship ok?? Are you back at Churchill?

Shipped well and back at CD

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

As of 3/24 post 10 in route races at TP was 12%.

interesting... i looked at a sample size of 120 races from Sept-Dec, and the breakdown was as follows for races a mile and greater:
1: 15/120
2: 22/120
3: 14/120
4: 17/120
5: 10/120
6: 12/120
7: 12/114
8: 8/103
9: 3/87
10: 3/66
11: 2/46
12: 3/21

So the outside 4 posts were a combined 11 for 220 (5%). Once again... not GP bad but certainly a disadvantage.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by philcski

1: 15/120
2: 22/120
3: 14/120
4: 17/120
5: 10/120
6: 12/120
7: 12/114
8: 8/103
9: 3/87
10: 3/66
11: 2/46
12: 3/21

So the outside 4 posts were a combined 11 for 220 (5%). Once again... not GP bad but certainly a disadvantage.

Phil..

Would actually be 11 of 153, no?

87 with 9 horses; another 20 with 10; 25 with 11 and 21 with 12..

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Phil..

Would actually be 11 of 153, no?

87 with 9 horses; another 21 with 10; 20 with 11 and 25 with 12...

220 starters in 120 races; of which 87 had at least 9 starters, 66 >=10 starters, 46 >=11 starters, and 21 >= 12 starters. I see how you are looking at it but I think you've got yourself mixed up- if you said "how did the inside 2 posts do" you'd say 37 for 240, right?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by philcski

220 starters in 120 races; of which 87 had at least 9 starters, 66 >=10 starters, 46 >=11 starters, and 21 >= 12 starters. I see how you are looking at it but I think you've got yourself mixed up- if you said "how did the inside 2 posts do" you'd say 37 for 240, right?

I would say 37 for 120. There is only the finite universe of number of opportunities (races). There wouldn't be 220 opps for the 1 or 2.. only the 120 opps. But you're likely right as there were 21 opps for the 12 to win; 46 for the 11, etc..

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Kasept

I would say 37 for 120. There is only the finite universe of number of opportunities (races). There wouldn't be 220 opps for the 1 or 2.. only the 120 opps. But you're likely right as there were 21 opps for the 12 to win; 46 for the 11, etc..

Fair point. End result is the post position isn't insurmountable like at GP at a mile and an eighth or Aqueduct inner at a mile (I just looked at 91 races from there and the 8 post was 4 for 62, the 9 post was 1 for 36, and the 10 post was 0 for 18... brutal. They shouldn't even run that distance on the inner.)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by philcski

interesting... i looked at a sample size of 120 races from Sept-Dec, and the breakdown was as follows for races a mile and greater:
1: 15/120
2: 22/120
3: 14/120
4: 17/120
5: 10/120
6: 12/120
7: 12/114
8: 8/103
9: 3/87
10: 3/66
11: 2/46
12: 3/21

So the outside 4 posts were a combined 11 for 220 (5%). Once again... not GP bad but certainly a disadvantage.

September races should not be combined with the winter results because they track plays a little different when it is warm like Sept versus the cold weather days. At least it does in my opinion. Not that that is worth much.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

September races should not be combined with the winter results because they track plays a little different when it is warm like Sept versus the cold weather days. At least it does in my opinion. Not that that is worth much.

an excellent point. especially with the way the poly has reacted negatively to the cold weather... could certainly affect the paths that were best.

i noticed they were "tilling" it after every race on Saturday. seemed a lot looser and safer that way.

[todko]

Originally Posted by philcski

interesting... i looked at a sample size of 120 races from Sept-Dec, and the breakdown was as follows for races a mile and greater:
1: 15/120
2: 22/120
3: 14/120
4: 17/120
5: 10/120
6: 12/120
7: 12/114
8: 8/103
9: 3/87
10: 3/66
11: 2/46
12: 3/21

So the outside 4 posts were a combined 11 for 220 (5%). Once again... not GP bad but certainly a disadvantage.

If you're including mile races the stats might be skewed. TP has a really short run to the turn at a mile. If you threw out the mile races you might find the outside posts doing better.

Like most tracks -- they don't run many races at 8.5f and above. Tough to get a statistically significant stat from such a small sample.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by todko

Tough to get a statistically significant stat from such a small sample.

that is good point