Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cardus
And the track did slow down considerably after the sprint. -- DAHoss9698
How do people know that the track slows or quickens during a day, minus a recognizable, tangible weather change, like rain or wind increase/decrease? This is what gets me about "split variants."
Why was the track at Churchill Downs slower after the Sprint? What atmospheric condition changed the composition of the dirt? What man-made change was observed that changed the distribution of the track surface?
There were two races run on dirt after the Sprint, neither of which resulted in a superficially fast time. Is it possible -- and given that most people considered Round Pond a fluky winner it is not unreasonable to suspect -- that the performances were sub-par?
While we can debate a lot of what Todko wrote -- or ridicule, based upon follow-up posts --I think that variant/speed figure portions of his post invite debate.
|
Thanks Cardus. It seems that the people who lost money on Bernardini have nothing left but resorting to insults. I called it beforehand. They bought the hype while I bought the winning ticket.
That nearly instantaneous slowdown in a track's surface is merely an excuse used often by poor handicappers. If the track moved in any way it should have been faster later in the day. Churchill did have rain that week.
You can't base a dependent variable (speed figure) on an iffy independent variable (track variant). To put it simply, horses are not quantifiable. If they were, we'd know in advance which horse was going to win. Not even the best supercomputer crunching the best numbers (throw Trakus in there too) will ever be able to predict which horse will win with much more than 30% accuracy.
If you bet the speed figures you are a fool. Bernardini is proof positive.