Secretariat and Buckpasser

[DDT]

Stan

What about the Derby, it also has a negative ROI but again you want to use the Belmont with no regard to the stats for the Derby and Preakness if looking at Buckpasser in an X passing position standing alone. You can boast about the success of the Belmont until the cows come home, and you can continue to try to link that success with the method developed in your book, however you cannot deny the stats that indicate that having Buckpasser in an X passing position is incidental and minor to producing a profit in the Derby or the Preakness.

DDT

[stancaris]

DDT: See Jeff's post on July 9, 2014 at 2:29 AM (Those are Remarkable Statistics Stan)

See my post on July 9, 2014 at 10:46 PM (You were well aware of my analysis)

[hpkingjr]

When one wagers on a race they are betting against the collective wisdom and skill of all the other bettors. Whatever that may be. Not to malign but how does the fresh horse system work from 1992 forward? Has anyone counted just the Belmont fresh horses and the results? Stan's results in the Belmont appear to have the upper hand over the average pundit's reliance on horse names,horse colors, post positions, jockeys and silks, hat colors and whether they defecated during the post parade.

[DDT]

hpkingjr

During the time period 1992-2014 there were a total of 173 runners that either did not run in a Triple Crown race, ran in the Derby and skipped the Preakness or did not run in the Derby and ran in the Preakness and/or a graded race prior to the Belmont and can be considered as fresh horses. Out of the 23 Belmonts during the time frame 17 winners produced a 71.6% winning average and the payout for a $2.00 win wager totaled $631.90. With 173 runners a $2.00 win wager on all of them comes to $346.00 for an ROI in the amount of $285.90.

[stancaris]

DDT: You are wrong in your statement that the ROI is $285.90. ROI is never given in dollars but is reported in a percentage or a decimal. The ROI is calculated by finding the profit and dividing the profit by the investment. In this case the profit of $285.90 is divided by an investment of $346 to yield an ROI of .826 which is converted to a percentage of 82.6% . The ROI is 82.6%

Interestingly, the impact value for the above method is negative because in that 23 year period the percentage of fresh horse starters in the Belmont is 74.2% (173 divided by 233 the no. of starters) The impact value is calculated as follows: 71.6 percent winners divided by 74.2% starters equals .96. An impact value of .96 means that fresh horses are performing slightly below statistical expectation in the Belmont stakes. However, because of the big priced winners there is a positive ROI of 82.6%

[DDT]

Stan

I deal in dollars not percentages and in this case the return on the investment is $285.90. In addition, I told you once before that impact value has no value to me when dealing with living, breathing, running animals in complete control of humans. If a jockey makes the wrong decision in a race what happens to the impact value, or for that matter any handicapping tool. If the trainer selects the wrong type of race for the horse does the impact value somehow make up for that error in judgment? To each his own Stan and it matters not how you express the return on investment but it does provide me with one of your favorite dance moves, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

DDT

[stancaris]

DDT wrote: "Impact values have no value to me."

So now you are turning a blind eye to an excellent method of handicapping the Belmont stakes. See Jeff's post on July 9, 2014 which deals with how I use impact values as a means of pointing out winners of the Belmont stakes.

The impact value derived from the use of Buckpasser in the X plus fast fractional times of 37 4/5 or less in a major 9 furlong prep race is a very strong 2.62 in the Belmont stakes from 1992-2014. This means that runners in the Belmont who fit the above combination are winning the Belmont stakes 162% more often than expected. It is a very profitable tool in the Belmont stakes because in addition to the strong impact value the ROI from 1992 to 2014 inclusive is a powerful 165% which is calculated as follows:

There were 27 qualifiers since 1992 and 7 of the qualifiers won and they returned a total of $143.40. Since a 2 dollar wager on each of the 27 qualifiers is $54, the profit obtained is $89.40. A profit of $89.40 divided by an investment of $57 equals an ROI of 1.65 or converted to a percentage equals 165% an extraordinary ROI.

Any reasonable person looking at the above data would conclude that the above method is a very strong one for the Belmont stakes.

Now from the above 27 qualifiers there were 7 winners, 5 place finishers, 3 show finishers, and 2 fourth place finishers for a total of 17 of the 27 finishing in the Superfecta and a total of 15 of the 27 finishing in the Trifecta.

17 of the 27 qualifiers is converted into 62.9% of the qualifiers finishing in the Superfecta.
15 of the 27 qualifiers is converted into 55.5% of the qualifiers finishing in the Trifecta.

The above is a VERY POWERFUL METHOD FOR SELECTING BELMONT WINNERS. You can turn a blind eye to it but the statistics are firm. Since there were 41% winners of the Belmont that qualified on this method and ONLY 15.6% of the starters that qualified, the impact value of this angle is a strong 2.62..

I use impact values for all three Triple Crown events and they provide an edge in ROI in all three legs of the crown.

[DDT]

Stan

So now you are using my personal preference concerning the use of impact values relating to horse racing to repost your attempt at explaining why the use of them is your preference.

DDT

[DDT]

The nickname DDT comes from a time in my life when as a baseball player I destroyed the baseball as a hitter.

DDT

[stancaris]

DDT: See my post on July 10, 2014 at 8:56 PM. That post clearly illustrates the importance of my Buckpasser in the X passing position angle in the Belmont stakes. The stats are amazing: the Impact values, winning percentage, and ROI are all extraordinary and lend support to the view that the X chromosome of Buckpasser certainly played more than a minor role in that success.

[DDT]

Stan

That is your opinion Stan, it is not that way for the Derby or the Preakness and if one examines all of the factors considered for winning the Belmont the genes carried on Buckpasser's X chromosome provide a minor influence under the very best of circumstances.

DDT

[stancaris]

DDT: That is your opinion DDT and if one looks at the Derby one finds that combining Buckpasser in the X with final fraction time of 37 4/5 or less in a major 9 furlong race the impact values and the ROIs are strongly positive as follows:

Kentucky Derby--- using Buck in the X plus final fraction time indicator 37 4/5 yields an impact value of 3.71 thru history. Runners that carry Buckpasser in the X and achieve a final fraction time of 37 4/5 or less are winning the roses almost 4 times more often than statistical expectation.

The ROI using the above angle is a very strong 84% thru the history of the Derby.

[DDT]

Stan

I have already explained to you why the ROI% is good and that is because by adding Buckpasser in an X passing position to the time indicator you do not add additional winners you simply eliminate the remaining 23 winners that the time indicator achieved standing alone, however if you include all of the runners that had Buckpasser in an X passing position standing alone, the ROI%, the winning percentage and the impact value all decrease. Why do you want to continue this argument?

DDT

[stancaris]

DDT: You asked why do I want to continue this argument? The answer is simply because I never used Buckpasser in the X as the sole handicapping factor. I always used it in combination with final fraction time and a few other fundamental factors that are outlined in my book-Analyzing the Triple Crown. Since I use it only as a combination factor and it is very successful in the Derby as well as the Belmont stakes I will once again restate its value:

In the Kentucky Derby history all the way back to the very first qualifier in 1978 (Believe It) to the present year included (California Chrome there have been ONLY 29 qualifiers that carried Buckpasser in the X and also achieved a final fraction time of 37 4/5 in a major 9 furlong prep race along with some minor additional fundamentals.

From these 29 qualifiers I got 6 winners of the Derby: Unbridled, Real Quiet, Funny Cide, Super Saver, Orb and California Chrome.
From these 29 qualifiers I got 8 place finishers: Easy Goer, Summer Squall, Prairie Bayou, Tejano Run, Cavonnier, Aptitude , Empire Maker, and Bodemeister.
From these 29 qualifiers I got 1 third place finisher- Believe It.

In summary from 29 qualifiers I got a total of 14 finishing in the Exacta or 48.3%.
In summary from 29 qualifiers I got a total of 15 finishing in the Trifecta or 51.7%

The impact value for this factor is a very powerful 3.71. (31.6% winners 6 of 19) divided by 8.5% of the starters = 3.71).
Runners fitting the criteria are winning the roses more than 3 1/2 times more often than statistical expectation.
Runners fitting this criteria have a powerful ROI of 84% thru the history of the Derby as indicated in my above post today.

An interesting side note: 8 qualifiers raced second in the Derby and the impact value for racing second with this factor is a fantastic 4.95. (42.1% place finishers divided by 8.5% of the starters equals 4.95). This means that horses with Buck in the X that also achieved a final fraction time of 37 4/5 plus a few other incidentals are running second in the Derby almost 5 times more often than statistical expectation.

Buckpasser in the X plus fast final fractions comes up VERY STRONG in the Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes.

The X chromosome of Buckpasser is an important role player in the above clear-cut success.

[DDT]

Stan

The time factor is the important or primary reason for the 6 winners, we discussed that and you said my argument was weak, my reply to you was if it was so weak why are there, or have there never been a Derby winner with Buckpasser in the X passing position standing alone and it has been that way ever since. In addition, the time factor developed in your book and covering the time period in the book, 1973-2012, produced a profit in the amount of $162.00 and the 4 winners having Buckpasser in an X passing position produced a profit of $40.00 it is a no brainer to see that the time factor alone produced 4 times the amount of take home cash Standing alone it is insignificant as a handicapping factor and the genes carried on Buckpasser's X chromosome are a minor influence for elite performance and a minor influence to becoming a leading or successful broodmare sire. I will not continue with you Stan, it is hopeless to say the least and I will never get my points through to you.

DDT