Final Verdict ... Fog Is A Fraud

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

This is an update on a post I made last night. I had stated that using the Bris pace and speed analysis it is easy to see the actual facts about LITF’s performances. I contacted the people at Bris and they were kind enough to give me the numbers for LITF in the Smile, so it helps to complete the picture.

The line consists of four numbers defined below:
E1-pace figure to the quarter
E2-pace figure to the half
LP-pace figure from the half to the end
SPD-final speed figure

This is a composite or average of all of LITF’s races. It shows his typical pace distribution early and late and total.
E1 E2 LP SPD
95 107 92 102

Here are the lines from his last five races.
E1 E2 LP SPD Finish race
93 111 79 95 eighth Smile sprint
88 103 102 107 first Aristides
101 110 81 96 second Golden Gate sprint (four horse field)
100 115 82 100 seventh BC - Sprint
94 103 105 109 first Bay Meadows Speed – five horse field

Notice that when he runs an E2 pace figure that is higher than his average, his late pace and final time suffer. Not coincidentally these all occurred in big G1 events or when there is a horse that is faster to the half than he is which is the case in the Golden Gate sprint (Carthage).

In the other races notice that his E1 and E2 pace were well within his target range and he was therefore able to come home strong and win. It is a textbook case of a horse being overmatched. His numbers in the Smile are remarkably similar to the BC sprint. If anything they were just slightly worse.

So Rupert this is why I claim that he IS consistent because when he has things his way you can pretty much predict the outcome and also when he is facing faster horses you can also predict the outcome because his three loses have remarkably similar late pace numbers. They weren't horrible but you can definetely see where he has maxed out.

For the record I’m not a shill for Bris but it is something that I use and find invaluable in deciphering the actual shape of the race.

I have offered what I think is a solid, logical argument to explain his performances. On the other hand people come back with such statements as “he didn’t fire”, “he didn’t try”, “he is not himself”, “he is sore”, “he is tired”. I have to tell you I think the guy is firing and is trying; he’s running his balls off. He is just in too deep.

I know nothing about Bris pace figures, but are you going to tell me that they are extremely reliable? Do you make money bettting the horses overall by using those figures? Do you usually show a profit at the end of the year by relying on those pace figures? If those figures are so reliable, then how many winning years in a row have you had betting the horses?
Do you understand my point? Here is an anology. Let's say that a guy likes to bet football and he loves the Jets this weekend. The Jets lose. He also loves the Rams this weekend. The Rams lose. The third game he loves is the Eagles. The Eagles win, so he won 1 out of 3 games. He says after the game, "I knew the Eagles would win." In reality he didn't know the Eagles would win. He may have thought they would win but he also thought the Jets and Rams would win. If he's not a winning player overall, then I think it's silly for him to say I knew this team would win for these reasons. He didn't know the team would win. He was just as positive that the Rams would win and he was totally wrong. I think the same could be said about those pace figures. The figures said that LITF would lose those races and he lost. That doesn't prove those figures are reliable any more so than the Eagles winning proves that my football guy is reliable at picking winners.
If you make a profit every year betting the horses by using those Bris figures, then they are probably pretty reliable. If not, then they are like anything else that works once in a while. A guy can say that he knew such and such a horse would win because the horse had the highest Beyer number. What about the other 8 races where the horse with the highest Beyer number lost.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I know nothing about Bris pace figures, but are you going to tell me that they are extremely reliable? Do you make money bettting the horses overall by using those figures? Do you usually show a profit at the end of the year by relying on those pace figures? If those figures are so reliable, then how many winning years in a row have you had betting the horses?
Do you understand my point? Here is an anology. Let's say that a guy likes to bet football and he loves the Jets this weekend. The Jets lose. He also loves the Rams this weekend. The Rams lose. The third game he loves is the Eagles. The Eagles win, so he won 1 out of 3 games. He says after the game, "I knew the Eagles would win." In reality he didn't know the Eagles would win. He may have thought they would win but he also thought the Jets and Rams would win. If he's not a winning player overall, then I think it's silly for him to say I knew this team would win for these reasons. He didn't know the team would win. He was just as positive that the Rams would win and he was totally wrong. I think the same could be said about those pace figures. The figures said that LITF would lose those races and he lost. That doesn't prove those figures are reliable any more so than the Eagles winning proves that my football guy is reliable at picking winners.
If you make a profit every year betting the horses by using those Bris figures, then they are probably pretty reliable. If not, then they are like anything else that works once in a while. A guy can say that he knew such and such a horse would win because the horse had the highest Beyer number. What about the other 8 races where the horse with the highest Beyer number lost.

That’s it? All you have to offer are unrelated questions as to whether I show a yearly profit and analogies about betting football games? I’ve stayed right on topic offering you my take on LITF and backing it up completely with facts. You don’t even mention anything I’ve offered. You merely say that you don’t know anything about Bris numbers. Well you wouldn’t necessarily have had to because I explained everything I posted and it actually is rather hard to deny the patterns. I guess you’re still more comfortable with the vague “he didn’t fire” hypothesis for those races.

Yes the Bris numbers are very reliable. I have improved tremendously using them. Like I said they give you a view of the race that you cannot find elsewhere. I am not touting them as some kind of simple solution to picking winners. Like I said I also relied heavily on replays in order to come to an opinion about LITF’s true class. I use several tools when handicapping. The Bris numbers did not predict that LITF would lose. That was my conclusion after noticing the consistent pattern of his performances. By no means am I implying that these numbers lead me to easy winners and yearly profits, there is much more to it than just looking at numbers. In an earlier post you were trying to back up your assertion that LITF had as much early speed as any horse running by stating that he ran a 43.2 half mile and won by ten lengths at GG. If you want to talk about data that is unreliable, it’s hard to beat looking at raw times.

Also I’m not implying that having an opinion that a horse will not win has much value. However when the horse routinely goes off at odds between 2:5 and 1:1 there is a great chance to make a nice score if you play the rest of the race or races correctly, but that’s no gimme. You can still screw it up like I did in the big pick five last week. I had 4 of 5, of course not using LITF, but I relied too much on Dubai Escapade so I didn’t have the winning combo.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

That’s it? All you have to offer are unrelated questions as to whether I show a yearly profit and analogies about betting football games? I’ve stayed right on topic offering you my take on LITF and backing it up completely with facts. You don’t even mention anything I’ve offered. You merely say that you don’t know anything about Bris numbers. Well you wouldn’t necessarily have had to because I explained everything I posted and it actually is rather hard to deny the patterns. I guess you’re still more comfortable with the vague “he didn’t fire” hypothesis for those races.

Yes the Bris numbers are very reliable. I have improved tremendously using them. Like I said they give you a view of the race that you cannot find elsewhere. I am not touting them as some kind of simple solution to picking winners. Like I said I also relied heavily on replays in order to come to an opinion about LITF’s true class. I use several tools when handicapping. The Bris numbers did not predict that LITF would lose. That was my conclusion after noticing the consistent pattern of his performances. By no means am I implying that these numbers lead me to easy winners and yearly profits, there is much more to it than just looking at numbers. In an earlier post you were trying to back up your assertion that LITF had as much early speed as any horse running by stating that he ran a 43.2 half mile and won by ten lengths at GG. If you want to talk about data that is unreliable, it’s hard to beat looking at raw times.

Also I’m not implying that having an opinion that a horse will not win has much value. However when the horse routinely goes off at odds between 2:5 and 1:1 there is a great chance to make a nice score if you play the rest of the race or races correctly, but that’s no gimme. You can still screw it up like I did in the big pick five last week. I had 4 of 5, of course not using LITF, but I relied too much on Dubai Escapade so I didn’t have the winning combo.

I heard your explanation loud and clear as to why LITF got beat in those 3 races. If you believe in those Bris figures, then your assessment sounds logical. I don't buy it. I've watched the horse a million times. I know he didn't fire in those races and I don't think it had much to do with who he was facing. If LITF would have run at Golden Gate this past Saturday against a bad field, I don't think he would have run 1:07 1/5. I think he would have run lousy on Saturday no matter where he ran. I would say the same for Dubai Escapade. She didn't have it on Saturday. If I explained to you that I had some figures that showed that Dubai Escapade ran her best this past Saturday and she got beat because she was totally overmatched, I don't think you would buy it.
I never said that LITF's going :43 1/5 at GG proved he was as fast as anyone. I know the track at GG is scorched and it is hard to compare to other tracks. But LITF has only run at GG a few of times. He's run all over the country. In every race he ever ran last year including the BC Sprint, LITF was always within a length of the lead no matter what the fractions were. I think he can pretty much keep up with anyone when he has it. There may be a few horses that have a little more early speed than him, but he has enough speed so that nobody is going to really get away from him.
To me, a horse "not firing" is not a vague hypothesis. To be a successful handicapper, you have to be a good judge of this. We've seen many really good horses lose. When they lose, we always have to ask the question of whether they simply were not good enough or did they lose because they didn't fire. When Saint Liam didn't hit the board at Santa Anita, was it because he wasn't good enough or was it because he didn't fire? It may have been a combination of both. I would say he definitely didn't fire, but I don't know if he would have beaten Rock Hard Ten even if he did fire. You could argue that RHT wasn't that impressive that day. He only beat Congrats by about a length. Congrats is not a good horse at all. I disagree. I think Congrats ran huge that day. He's never been the same since, but that day he ran great.
Anyway, you're not going to change my mind about LITF and I'm not going to change yours. And even though I'm confident that I'm right, it's possible that I have misjudged LITF. I've been wrong before and I could be wrong in this case. I don't think I'm wrong but it is certainly possible.
There is a chance that the truth is somewhere in between. LITF may not have fired in those races but even if he would have fired, maybe he would have still lost. He may have finished much closer but he may have still lost.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I heard your explanation loud and clear as to why LITF got beat in those 3 races. If you believe in those Bris figures, then your assessment sounds logical. I don't buy it. I've watched the horse a million times. I know he didn't fire in those races and I don't think it had much to do with who he was facing. If LITF would have run at Golden Gate this past Saturday against a bad field, I don't think he would have run 1:07 1/5. I think he would have run lousy on Saturday no matter where he ran. I would say the same for Dubai Escapade. She didn't have it on Saturday. If I explained to you that I had some figures that showed that Dubai Escapade ran her best this past Saturday and she got beat because she was totally overmatched, I don't think you would buy it.
I never said that LITF's going :43 1/5 at GG proved he was as fast as anyone. I know the track at GG is scorched and it is hard to compare to other tracks. But LITF has only run at GG a few of times. He's run all over the country. In every race he ever ran last year including the BC Sprint, LITF was always within a length of the lead no matter what the fractions were. I think he can pretty much keep up with anyone when he has it. There may be a few horses that have a little more early speed than him, but he has enough speed so that nobody is going to really get away from him.
To me, a horse "not firing" is not a vague hypothesis. To be a successful handicapper, you have to be a good judge of this. We've seen many really good horses lose. When they lose, we always have to ask the question of whether they simply were not good enough or did they lose because they didn't fire. When Saint Liam didn't hit the board at Santa Anita, was it because he wasn't good enough or was it because he didn't fire? It may have been a combination of both. I would say he definitely didn't fire, but I don't know if he would have beaten Rock Hard Ten even if he did fire. You could argue that RHT wasn't that impressive that day. He only beat Congrats by about a length. Congrats is not a good horse at all. I disagree. I think Congrats ran huge that day. He's never been the same since, but that day he ran great.
Anyway, you're not going to change my mind about LITF and I'm not going to change yours. And even though I'm confident that I'm right, it's possible that I have misjudged LITF. I've been wrong before and I could be wrong in this case. I don't think I'm wrong but it is certainly possible.
There is a chance that the truth is somewhere in between. LITF may not have fired in those races but even if he would have fired, maybe he would have still lost. He may have finished much closer but he may have still lost.

You're right, no one is changing their mind. I am confident in my view on this.
To me those results have everything to do with who he was facing and little or nothing to do with misfires. In every race last year, he may have been near the lead at the half, but only one time was he beaten badly at the wire. It was at the same track where previously in the year he took a liking to and won a G2 against 3yo's. Hmmm.

What's funny is that I actually am the one that believes that he is running overall very honestly and consistently. Actually I very much admire this horse. OTOH you've got him mis-firing three of the last four races which describe a lesser horse in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I've watched the horse a million times. I know he didn't fire in those races

Aren't you repeatedly stating the obvious ... I mean ...

... has any horse who ever finished a distant sixth or ninth ever "fired"?

The reason Lost In The Fog didn't "fire" in his two races against quality opposition ... is because he was too worn out by the other horses to do so.

I wonder what psychologists have to say ... about this syndrome of denying reality by affirming reality?